Skip to main content

Full text of "The Ancestor : a quarterly review of county and family history, heraldry and antiquities .."

See other formats

e:neal.ogy collection 


3 1 

833 01230 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2014 


A Quarterly Review of County and 
Family History, Heraldry 
and Antiquities 

Number III 
OCTOBER 1902. 





By F. H. T. Jervoise i 


By J. Horace Round, M.A. 14 

DOCTOR AND PATIENT IN 162 1. By W. H. B. Bird, B.A. 36 


By Estelle Nathan ijllustrated) 41 



II. The Levingtons . . By the Rev. James Wilson, M.A. 73 


By the Rev. James Wilson, M.A. 85 


By T. G. Nevill, F.S.A. {Illustrated) 87 


By Oswald Barron, F.S.A. 93 


By the Rev. Thomas Taylor, M.A. 98 




By Oswald Barron, F.S.A. 127 


By the Rev. J. Charles Cox, LL.D., F.S.A. 132 



By Oswald Barron, F.S.A. 177 


OUR OLDEST FAMILIES: III. Shirley; IV. Carteret ... 214 





TIhe Copyright of all the Articles and Illustrations 
in this Review is strictly reserved 

The pages of The Ancestor will be open 
to correspondence dealing with matters 
within the scope of the review. 

Questions will be answered, and advice 
will be given, as far as may be possible, 
upon all points relating to the subjects 
with which The Ancestor is concerned. 

While the greatest care will be taken 
of any MSS. which may be submitted for 
publication, the Editor cannot make him- 
self responsible for their accidental loss. 

All literary communications should be 
addressed to 

The Editor of The Ancestor 
2 Whitehall Gardens 

Westminster S.W 

Sir John Doddridge. 

(From his portrait at the Society of Antiquaries.) 



THE earliest authentic information of the history of this 
family which has been associated for between three and 
four centuries with the counties of Hampshire and Wiltshire, 
is gathered from an ancient * cartulary' of i8o folios, bound 
in vellum and compiled in 1551 during the lifetime of its 
owner Richard Jerveys, mercer and alderman of London. 

From the pedigree on the first page we find that he was 
born in 1 500 and that his father was * Thomas Jerveys some- 
tyme of Kidderminster.' 

The next memorandum in this ' cartulary,' or, as Richard 
calls it, his ' Book of Evidences,' is as follows : — 

^ Memorandum that I Richard Jerveis of London mercer 
toke to wyiFe Wenefride late the wyflFe of William Stathum of 
London mercer and maried her the thursdaye the xxvj day in 
Octobre A? dni. 1525 whiche was dough ter of John Bernerd 
of London mercer and had isshues by the soveraunce of God 
these children as hereafter doth folowe by the said Wenefride 

* Item Barnard Jerveis my first sone was borne the xv 
daye of Septembre A° xv^xxx betwext x and xi of the cloke 
at night and crisined the xvj daye Doctor Clement and James 
Barnard his godfathers Mrs. Resce late the wyflFe of John Grene 
mercer godmother and James Bolney mercere godfather at the 
bysshop which Barnard departed to Gode in Octobre anno 
dni. 1535. 

^ Item Thomas Jerveis my second sone was borne on 
Saterday being Childermas day the xxviij daye of Decembre 
the yere of our Lord God xv*^ and xxxij iij quarters of the 
houre after ix of the cloke in the night and crisined on 
Seint Thomas day foUowyng, his godfathers Sir Thomas More 
Knyght late Lord Chauncellor of Inglond M"" Thomas Walshe 
the Kyngs Remembrauncer in his Exchequer Ladie Mary 
Seymer wyfFe to Sir Thomas Seymer Knyght Alderman of 
London godmother, godfather at the busshop George Welshe 
brother to the said Thomas Walshe. 



^ Item Richard Jerveis my iij^® sone was borne on Sonday the 
iij day of Septembre A° 1536 at vij of the cloke before noon 
and crisined the same daye his godfathers at the Fount Walter 
Marshe and Henry Polsted gent, godmother Barbara wyffe to 
Andrewe Fuller of London mercer and merchaunt of the 
Staple at Caleis and at the bysshop John Walker deputie to 
the righte honorable Counties of Sarum. These Christ geve 
them of his grace that they may be alle his servaunts in the 
faith of Jesu Criste Amen.' 

From the fact that Sir Thomas More and Richard Jerveis 
were living at Chelsea, and the evident friendship that existed 
between the families, it is thought quite possible that the por- 
trait of Richard Jerveis (which we give) may have been 
among those painted by Holbein of persons known to have 
been friends of More. 

Richard gives no clue to his ancestors, and, if we may 
infer, from his placing a pedigree of his father's children at the 
beginning of his cartulary, that his object was to found a 
family, it is interesting to find that he was so far successful 
that one of his largest properties, that of Britford near Salis- 
bury (bought in 1538 from the Earl of Huntingdon and Lord 
Hastings his son), still remains to his descendants. Amongst 
the other purchases of land by the wealthy mercer were the 
manors of Northfield, Weoley and Bedcote in Worcestershire 
and a house in the city of Worcester, where he retired to ; the 
manors of Quatt and Chelmarsh in Shropshire; the manor 
of Walkeringham in Nottinghamshire, and in London, a house 
in Bow Lane. 

From the Records of the Mercers' Company we find that 
Richard Jervais was apprenticed in 1507. In 1543 he suc- 
ceeded Laxton as Alderman of Aldersgate, and in 1549 of 
Bassingshaw, while in 1546 he served as sheriff with Thomas 
Curteis, during the Lord Mayoralty of Sir Henry Hobberl- 

Richard in his will leaves all his goods to be divided into 
thirds between his wife and two surviving sons, 'according 
to the custom of the city of London,' and we feel that a 
worthy man has had his due by his remembering his ' pen- 
neman ' ; the properties eventually came to his eldest surviv- 
ing son Thomas. 

In St. Luke's Church at Chelsea there is a monument in 
the form of an arch, but it is uncertain whether it was erected 


Richard Jkrvoise and Family. 



to Richard the father or Richard the son, for, though the 
only inscription is doubtless to the son who died in 1563 
(the father dying in 1557), it seems probable that an altar 
tomb has been removed from below the arch. 

From the address on the letters written by the mother 
at Worcester to her sons, after their father's death, they 
appear to have continued to live at Chelsea : both brothers 
were 'called to the bar,' Richard to the Inner Temple and 
Thomas to the Middle Temple. In each letter Winifred 
Jerveis gives some sound advice ; on one occasion she writes : 
' I pray you and your brother not to be so louyse yn your 
expence, for, yf you be, yt woU melte as hotter yn the sonne.* 

Of Thomas Jerveys, who succeeded his father, we know 
little, except that he married Cicely Ridley, a Shropshire 
heiress, and was the first governour of Stourbridge School 
(King Edward VI. 's), probably on account of his being lord 
of the Manor of Bedcote. His death in 1588 at Britford 
near Salisbury is shrouded in mystery, which remained un- 
solved in spite of a large reward for information being offered 
by his widow, who afterwards married Sir George Wrottesley, 
knight, a member of a younger branch of the family of 
Wrottesley of Wrottesley. 

The wardship of his only son Thomas, who was then a 
year old, was granted to Rowland Lacon and Francis Newport, 
who sold it for £2^0 to Sir George Wrottesley, who in 1601 
parted with it to Sir Richard Powlett, knight, of Herriard and 
Fryfolk in Hants, for 1,100 : the object of the purchase on 
the part of Sir Richard being to marry his daughter and co- 
heiress Lucy to the ward. The marriage licence, costing 20j., 
is signed by Thomas Ridley (July 17, 1601). 

In August 161 1, at the age of twenty, he received knight- 
hood at the hand of King James at Salisbury, and five years 
later Sir Thomas entered public life as High Sheriff of Shrop- 
shire. The part he took in public affairs in his native county 
of Wiltshire was much less important than in Hampshire, 
where the estates which he held with his wife, after her father's 
death in 16 14, made his influence felt. He was elected in the 
third Parliament of James I. (1621) to represent the borough 
of Whitchurch (Hants) with Sir Robert Oxenbridge, knight ; 
in 1628 with his wife's cousin. Sir Henry Wallop, knight, and 
along with his eldest son Richard he sat for the same borough 
in the Short and Long Parliaments of Charles I. 



Various commissions show that, with him as with so many 
country gentlemen of those unhappy times, his career on its 
military side developed into a grim reality. Colonel of a 
regiment of dragoons and Hampshire Militia (Kingsclere 
Division) in 1630, Sir Thomas was subsequently appointed 
by the Earl of Essex in 1642 to the command of a Regiment 
of Horse, and was with Sir William Waller at the surrender 
of Portsmouth. Later he was one of the committee formed 
for the defence of the same town by the Parliamentarian 
troops, and in June 1644, difficulty in obtaining sufficient 
money to pay the garrison caused the House of Commons to 
issue the order to Sir Thomas Jervoise, Richard Wallop and 
Richard Whitehead to take steps, within one month, for the 
sequestration of the estates of ' Papists and Delinquents ' of 
a less value than 12,000, within the cities of London and 
Westminster, and to apply the proceeds to the liquidation of 
the ;^8,ooo due in arrears to the garrisons of Portsmouth, and 
of Hurst, Southsea and Calshot Castles. 

After this time Sir Thomas retired from a military to a 
civil life on his appointment in 1644, by both Houses of 
Parliament, to succeed the Duke of Lennox, in the office of 
High Steward of the Royal Manor of Richmond (Surrey) and 
Keeper of the Little Park. From his accounts kept in a pocket 
book he appears to have constantly travelled up to London by 
boat from Richmond, probably to attend to Parliamentary 

The manor of Herriard, which Lucy Powlett brought to 
her husband, Sir Thomas Jervoise, was one of the sixty held 
by Hugh de Port at the time of the Domesday survey, and in 
the twelfth century probably by the ' de Herierds,' mentioned 
in the Pipe Rolls as holding under the ' de Ports.' The earliest 
charter in the possession of the Jervoise family relating to this 
manor is that of Maud de Herierd, who, holding it under 
Reynold Fitz Peter, granted it, in about 1240, to Fulc de 
Coudray, his step-grandson, in exchange for the manors of 
Padworth in Berks and Mulsho in Bucks for her life. The 
Cowdrays held it till an heiress Elizabeth married, in 1540, 
Richard Powlett, younger brother of the first Marquis of 
Winchester, who were the great-grandparents of Lucy. 

The charter from Reynold Fitz Peter, confirming the 
grant by Maud de Herierd, has an interesting armorial seal 
in green wax. 

Richard Jerveys. 1500- 1557. 

Captaim Thomas Jekvoise. 



Sir Thomas died on 20th October 1654, having married 
as his second wife Frances, daughter of Thomas Jay, Com- 
missary General of the Cavalry under Charles L, by whom he 
had several children. 

Richard of Freefolk, the eldest son of Sir Thomas, as we 
have already seen represented Whitchurch in the Short and 
Long Parliaments with his father. On his marriage. May 
8, 1637, with Frances, daughter of Judge Crooke of Water- 
stoke, CO. Oxon, the manor of Freefolk Syfrawast was settled 
on him. This property, part of his mother's inheritance, 
passed out of the family in 1674, when his last surviving 
daughter and heiress, Mary, wife of William Wilmott of 
Upper Lamborne, co. Berks, sold it to one Randal Clayton for 
;^7,500. Connected with Freefolk there is in the possession 
of the family a 'bull' of Clement IV. (1267) permitting Sir 
Thomas Warbilton to have his own private chapel and chap- 

Henry the third son we find serving, as captain of the 
Fellowships under Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick, the Admiral 
in command of the Parliamentarian fleet. 

Captain Thomas, the second but eldest surviving son of Sir 
Thomas Jervoise, born i6th March 161 5, was as vigorous a 
partisan of the Parliament as his father and, as a Captain of 
Horse, was continually in the field from April 1 643 to the close 
of the war, first under Sir W. Waller, and during the last year 
under Fairfax.^ The influential position his father held in 
Hampshire enabled Thomas materially to assist the Parlia- 
mentary cause in that part, by recruiting for the forces, and his 
own active share in the war was sufficient to attract the 
attention of Clarendon, who in his History of the Rebellion calls 
him and another Parliamentarian, Captain John Jephson, ' the 
two eldest sons of two of the greatest rebells of that country, 
and both heirs to good fortune.' He played a distinguished 
part at the siege of Corfe Castle in 1643, when Colonel 
Norton was entrusted with the reduction of Basing House, the 
greatest stronghold of the king's party in North Hampshire, 
Captain Jervoise commanded a troop of horse in the besieging 
army, and was captured in Basing Church by the Royalists 
under Colonel Gage, who had been sent by the king from 

^ In August 1643 he holds a commission as Cornet in Sir Arthur Hazel- 
rigg's regiment, and in December as Captain of Horse in Lieut. General 
Middleton's regiment under Sir William Waller's command till April 1645. 



Oxford to relieve the hard pressed garrison. Captain Thomases 
captivity only lasted three months, being exchanged in October 
1644 for a Royalist officer imprisoned at Farnham, and he 
was in the field again in December drawing full pay. 

The activity and excesses of Goring in the west drew 
Fairfax there with his new modelled army to raise the siege of 
Taunton, and large bodies of recruits were raised in Hampshire 
to join him. At a muster held at Romsey in June 1645 
Colonel Massey, the Governor of Gloucester, who was 
collecting reinforcements, was joined by ^ Capt. Jervoise with 
340 horse and 340 Reformadoes, a welcome accession of 
strength.' With a force of 3,000 men Massey joined the 
army of Fairfax which, returning from the decisive victory of 
Naseby, was on its way to relieve Taunton and recover the 
towns captured by Goring in Somerset and Wilts. This was 
the last campaign of the war, and the defeat of Goring at 
Langport in July, followed by the capture of Bridgewater and 
Bristol, shattered the hopes of the Royalists. Captain Jer- 
voise returned home on his troop being disbanded (December 
24, 1646). 

Several of his appointments and certificates of having been 
in ' actual service ' are in good preservation, two of which are 
signed by Waller, one testifying to his ' having demeasned 
himself well in actual Service under him in Captain William 
Cross' Troop from 29th August to November 1643 ' > 
another that he was 'Captain of a troop of horse, from 29th 
December 1643, 30th April 1645, -^^ Grenville's 

regiment.' On the final disbanding of his troop he was 
given the following certificate by General Fairfax : — 

' Captain Jervoise, in the said Brigade (Major-General 
Massie's), hath demeasned himself with fidelity & courage 
in the Service wherein he hath bin employed, & with fair 
& civill carriage in the Disbanding of the said Brigade is 
freely dismissed and discharged from his urgent service & is 
at liberty to repaire to his owne home or friends. 

' Given under my hand & seal the 24th day of October 
1646.^ 'T Fairfax.' 

^ An interesting sequel to the Civil Wars is the claim of Sir Thomas for 
damages done to his properties in different counties, mainly to Herriard which, 
owing to its proximit)' to Basing House, suffered to the extent of about j^6,ooo 
for corn, cattle and other provisions * commandeered,' out of a total claim of 
15,000. An Act was passed in 1649 granting him the estates of John, Mar- 

Sir Thomas Jervoise, Kt. 



Captain Thomas Jervoise married in 1657 Mary, second 
daughter of Geo. Purefoy of Wadly, co. Berks, another Parlia- 
mentarian family, by whom he had two sons and four 
daughters. After his military career was over Thomas took 
his part in county affairs as High Sheriff for co. Southampton, 
1667, and as one of the two Hampshire members of the 
Parliaments of January and August of 1689. His second 
daughter, Lucy, married Admiral Killygrew of S. Julias, 
Hertford. He was buried at Herriard May 13, 1693. 

His eldest son Thomas, born September 6, 1667, took 
a leading part in politics. He represented Stockbridge 1691, 
and Hampshire from 1698 till 1702, when he was returned 
for Plympton (Devon), but was unseated the following year. 
It was not long before he was again at Westminster, as he 
was returned for Hendon in November 1704. In the follow- 
ing year Hampshire again elected him, and he continued to 
sit as one of the two members for the county till 17 10, 
when he was defeated by a small majority. 

His chief work on his Hampshire property was the build- 
ing of the present house, completed in 1704. His architect 
was Tollman, and it is interesting to find accounts of a journey 
to Chatsworth with the object, probably, of seeing the finest 
mansion designed by this architect. That it was erected on 
a new site is gathered from a note in Thomas's pocket book, 
of an agreement ' to dig up ye foundations and rubbish of ye 
olde house at 3*^* a load.' The laying out of the park followed 
the building of the house. 

By his first marriage with Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Gilbert 
Clarke, he had one son Thomas, who succeeded him in 1743, 
and who lived chiefly at Northfield, where he died unmarried 
in 1776 at the age of 81. His second wife Elizabeth was the 
heiress of Sir John Stonehouse, bart, of Amerden Hall (de- 
scended from the younger brother of Sir William Stonehouse 

quis of Winchester, who had held out during a siege lasting two and a half years, 
until he should be able to recoup the sum of £^^000. In 165 1, however, 
another Act of Parliament appointed the estates to be sold by the trustees of the 
Council at Drury House as lands forfeited for treason. Sir Thomas now seems 
to have done the Marquis a neighbourly turn by agreeing to accept a sum of 
6,000, remitting 1,000 of the debt, and using his good offices to obtain the 
repeal of the Act, thus saving the estates from being dispersed. After the 
* Restoration ' a Bill was brought into the House of Lords for the repayment 
of the 9,000 by Thomas Jervoise the son and Robert Wallop, but this was 
allowed to drop (Hist. MSS. Comm. House of Lords). 



of Radley, the ancestor of the present family of that name), 
whose portion of ;^85000 was all in land. Their daughter 
Elizabeth married Samuel, son of Sir Samuel Clarke, and to 
her son, Jervoise, Northfield and Weoley were bequeathed by 
his grandfather, Thomas Jervoise. On succeeding to this pro- 
perty he took the name of Jervoise, according to his godfather 
Thomas's will. Their son Richard, born 5th January 17OT, 
lived chiefly at Britford, co. Wilts, and at one time on the 
continent. He married Anne, daughter of Tristram Huddle- 
ston of Croydon in 1733, and was buried at Britford in March 

In the large picture painted by Chamberlayne, he and his 
wife are portrayed with their two sons, Tristram and George, 
and their only daughter Anne, who died in 1758, aged thirteen. 
A memorandum tells us that the dog was especially taken up 
to London to be introduced into the picture. 

His two other sons, Richard and Thomas, predeceased 
their father. Tristram, born 1736, lived at Britford, and spent 
much money on improving that estate. During his lifetime 
the manors of Lasham and Tunworth, co. Hants, were added 
to the property ; he repurchased Stratford St. Anthony, co. 
Wilts, which had been sold to pay the heavy expenses incurred 
by his grandfather in electioneering. In 1767 he was sheriff 
for Hampshire ; and dying unmarried in 1794 was succeeded 
by his brother in the Wiltshire property, having conveyed 
Herriard during his lifetime, in 1792, to his nephew, George 
Purefoy Jervoise. 

The property of Shalston, co. Bucks, was left to Tristram's 
only surviving brother, George (born 1739), ^7 kinsman 
Henry Purefoy in 1765, and with it he took the surname of 
its late owner. Four years later he married Mary, daughter 
of Rev. Wright Hawes, rector of Shalston, by whom he had 
three sons and four daughters. In 1795 George resumed the 
family name of Jervoise, and on his death at Shalston, 1805, 
was succeeded by his son, George Purefoy Jervoise, who re- 
presented Salisbury in Parliament for some years and after- 
wards Hampshire. He married twice, but dying in 1847 
no children ; the Purefoy estate he bequeathed to Elizabeth, 
the daughter of his brother Richard who died in the Penin- 
sular War, who married Thomas Fitz Gerald, and whose 
grandson Richard, lately Commander on H.M. yacht, has 
recently assumed the name of Purefoy with the estates. 

Thomas Jervoise. 

Lady Jkrvoise 

Daughter and Heiress of Sir Richard Paulett of Herriard, Kt. 



The Jervoise estates, according to the entail, passed to his 
sister Mary, whose husband, the Rev. Francis Ellis, assumed 
the name and was granted the arms of her family, and, on her 
death in 1849, to her son Francis Jervoise Ellis Jervoise, the 
father of the present head of the family, Francis M. E. 
Jervoise, born 1844. 


Miscellaneous Extracts from Pocket Book of Sir Thomas Jerveys during his 

residence at Richmond 
1644-S £ s. d. 

To Cap* Bruce for 7 pound and a halfe of tobaco the 3 ffeb. 200 
To M'- Lacok the 7 day of ffeb. for a weekly dyett and 

Chamber rent ..0190 

To William Smith for a bottle of sack and a bottle of Claryt 

wine the 10 day 030 

To him the 1 1 day for half a pint of sack 009 

The 1 5 day to the poore at Richmond 010 


To the officer at the parlyment house this 16 day (April ..050 
Payed to John Galbraith the taylo' for Winifrid's goune the 
fry day the 24 Ap whereof 20^ is not to be conted in 

this year ....1186 

To a constable of Richmond the 27 day for a tax . . . . . o 9 o 

To a minister the 26 day 05 o 

For my dyner Thursday 7 May 016 

Att the Abbey for a seat 9 May 010 

Received of M- Guidott by the appointment of William 
Guidott the 29 December being parte of my rent att 
Birdford 20 o o 

Layed out 

To Hudson the shomaker the 30 day . . . . . . . . 210 o 

Taken out then for my own use 0100 

payed that 010 o the 7 day of January for the exposition 
upon the bible 

payed to Makerell the harnesse maker the 8 day for 2 Coach 

harnesse 950 

the 9 day of Jan. for Coach hire 030 

for my dinner that day 020 

payd M""" Lacok this i o Jan for my chamb' my breckfast and 4 

pond of candell & a quire of paper .......090 

that day for oranges 010 

To Willm Smith that day to pay the ferryman at Kew 16*'^ 

delivered him ...016 

that day to one who brought a cheyre for my boy ....020 
I came to London Thursday the 19 ffeb. 

Received of my wife that day 100 

brought up in silver ..130 


Layed out ^ s. d. 

payed for my dinner the 20 day 030 

to Macy the bookseller yt day 030 

To a coachman yt day 010 

To To : at M""* Lacoth the 21 day for an once of tobaco & 

pap' to him that day for cuttinge a pond of tobaco ..010 

to William Smith this day for wine oiio 

that day for a rod for my pistole 006 

that day for a payre of ores at Kew 006 

Given to a poor minister the 2 1 day att Richmond ....030 
To the ferryman att Kew & to a payre of ores the 23 day ..016 


I came up to London 2 3 of Decembre being Tusday 

Received of my wife that day 200 

Broght up in all 9^3 9 

Layd out 

23 To Macy the bookseller 010 

for a pinte of sacke 026 

for my dynner the 29 Day 026 

given the 25 day to the house men 060 

that day for hire of a coach 030 

given away that day for a messenger to Richmond ....020 

To Mr. Lacok the 27 day for half a 100 fagott 056 

the 27 day for my Chamb*^* 090 

To the Barber that day 026 

To the ferry man at Richmond that day 010 

Sir Thomas Jervois 

(From Book in vellum cover of) * Money Sir Rd. Poulett hath delyvered 
to M"' Thomas Gervois 30 Maye 42 Eliz. 1600. 

Sent him by M'" Samborne on Lamas day being faire at Burford xxx^- 
Pd. (in Michaelmas terme) for apparell boughte at his request for 
him 1600 7 Oct. to M. Winche for 7 yards of ashcoller 

satten to make him a dublet and hose at 14J. the yard . . v"- xviij^- • 

Pd. in Chepside then for chaing of ix''- into gold xviij^- 

Pd. for 3 yards quarter of clothe to make him a cloke at xy. the 

yarde xxxv^- 

Pd. for a yard of fine bayes to lyne yt vj^- 

Pd. for a booke of humors for him viij^- 

Pd. for a paire of Silke Stockings for him xxv*' 

Pd. for a shert and a black . . band & cufFes xvj^- ix*** 

Pd. for a qzteme & halfe of TafFata to face & lyne the skirts of 

his dublet v^' iv**- 

Pd. for 3 dousen of buttons for yt & his Cloke viij^- 

Accounts of money spent on Sir Thomas Jervois pd. out of the yerely Exhi- 
bition from M""' Fleetwood general receiver court of wards & liveries by 

* James Samborne his tutor.' From J year ending Michaelmas 1 60 1 to 
30 Dec. 1606. 


Receptes £4-9^ o 

Paimentes £827 8 6 

* so he hathe expended more than his Exhibition as apeareth in particulars in 
this book wch he remayneth this 27 December 1606 endebted to me for 
beside & all other Recknings dew to me & my wife inst the some of 

£33^ 6 6. 

Payde to Wrotsly by Me: beside ^£200 pd. by Mr. Irton & 

£20 by Mr. Giles Hutchins of Sarum I saye pd. by £ s. d. 
me 880 o o 

Layd out in his busnes before exhibition ...... 200 o o 


A true inventory taken of the goods and chatties of S""- Richard Poullett late of 
Herryott in the county of South. Knight deceased by virtue of an Ad- 
ministracon granted to Dame Lucy Jervoyse the daughter of the said Sir 
Richard & now wyfe to Sir Thomas Jervoyse Knight by William Prince 
Clement Welsh Thomas Oldes John Sparry & William Waterman. 

In the Hall 

Item — 3 table boords 2 longe oldfformes& joyned ffoorme and 

seaven jond stooles 00 26 8 

one lyttle clocke and the frame thereunto . . . . . . . 00 23 4 

12 letherne buckets 00 20 00 

an old pair of brasse Anndirons, a pr. of iron doggs and a 

pr. of tonges 00 10 00 

a lyttle standing joyned presse 00 5 00 

Two hanging brasen candlesticks an old skreene & a pr. of 

snuffers 00 2 00 

eight small pictures 00 4 00 

In the parlor 

Itm. Two table boords & two jffoormes 00 26 8 

Six cloth Quyshin stooles 

Six needlework Quyshin stooles 00 16 00 

An old livery cubbard a presse cubbard and a round table . . 00 1 4 00 
an olde hye cheere a stoole and 2 old long Quyshins of black 

velvett embroidered with goold 00 33 4 

an old couch cheere a ffoorme a lyttle stoole of black velvett 

and frynged 00 23 4 

Two old hye cheers two lowe cheers and two lowe stooles w*'*- 

tawny velvett frynged 00 36 8 

one old hye cheere one hye stoole two lowe stooles wrought 

with needle workee 00 14 6 

Two long neeled woork Quyshins 00 1 5 00 

one old long Quyshin of yellow satin embroidered w'''- velvett 00 4 00 

one old hye cheer w. red velvett layd on w^**- goold lace . . 00 8 00 

one old greene cloth carpett and sixe Turky Quyshins . . . 00 26 8 

Thre old long cloth Quyshins 00 3 00 

Thre greene say window curteyns and curteyn rods .... 00 3 4 



a pair of old brasen and irons a pr. of iron doggs a fj'er shovell s. d. 
and tonges a pr. of snuffers a skreene a l)ttle hand skreene 

a pair of Bellowes 2 oo oo 

Tre little lowe joynd stooles a deske ten picktures a byble and 

hollinshud's chronycle 00 33 4 

In the Wardrtjpp 

Item a low Bedsteed w'- a cann}'pye a long curtej-ne 2 fether- 

beds I bolster 2 pillowes 4 pr. of blanketts i greene nigg 8 00 00 

Two long Quyshins 00 10 00 

Three greene say window curteyns 00 3 00 

an old pair of black tuftafaty valens with yellow frjmge ... 00 5 4 
a pair of old red vallens with white and an old covering belong- 
ing to the same 00 5 00 

T\TO red curtejus 00 9 00 

One lardge crimson curteyne with goold buttens for a canypie 00 16 00 
Six corsletts of old Armor a halbeard a patronell a black bill 

with ffower old Jacks 6134 

a pillion and an old velvett cloth w'^ the fiirnyture thereunto . 2 10 00 

a little cheer for a child 00 2 6 

one wooden frame for a cheer 00 i 4 

Thre lawe books 00 6 8 

one table boord and a matt with a little box and a mesuring 
old chajme and an old yellow buckram bed cover with 

some other implements of lumber 00 10 o 



In London, 22 Day of June, Anno Dm. 1537. 

Mr. Walshe I send you a letter by Henr^' Horton whiche I knoue well 
cam to yor hands for payment of the rest of yor accompt to the hands of my 
cosin Sir William Tomyns vicar of Kidderminster whiche is xxvi./i. \-].s. y'lyd. 
ob. for the paj-ment thereof Thereof now which I suppose is not don. 
Wherin I require you at the syght of this letter ye pay or cause to be paid to 
the hands of my said kinsman the said som of twentj^e syxt pounds yj.s. vij.d. 
ob. And that I may percp'e by my said cosyn by wrj-tjug that he have re- 
cep'ed the said som yf ye refuse this to doo take this for a full perfect answer 
and knowledge I will seke remedy accordyng to the Kyngs Lawes whiche ye 
force me to doo contrary to that ffrjTidshipe as ye have founde in me whiche 
nede not to be rehersed but God send you noo worse fortune then I wold ye 

Per me Richard Jerveys. 

At London the i^th daye of Decemhre, Anne Dni. 1537. 

Master Welshe this p to advert}'se youe this ys the thyrde lettre I 
have wr^'tten to you for my rent to whome and where ye shulde del)Ter yor 
accompt w*^ payment to M'- Vicar of Kydermj-nster whiche ye have refused 
nether send hym answer of my lett^' in wrytjTig but a sleveles answer be 



51 r-— 

I t'^*' vn^vK^ -fo <; 
■^•>f -ff?.. r<x>^ ^ittfVf 



Pedigree from MS. "Book of Kvidences." 


mouthe by yor servant the daye have ben ye coulde have wryten very well but 
I doo finde the saying of yor kynsman and my fryndes true nevertheless inso- 
moche as ye will nether bryng yt nether send yt nor pay yt where I doo 
appoynt it a greate lyckly ye intend too pay no rent I trust there be a remedy 
by the order of the Kyngs lawe whiche ye doo force me to seke. God willyng 
I will so doo. And furder I charge you and commande you ye receyve noo 
peny of rent of my tennants from Myghelmas last past forwarde and ye doo at 
your perell 

By me Richard Jerveys 





IF all ages have their rascals, there was none perhaps in our 
history when they so abounded and flourished as in that 
time of revolution, spoliation and general social upheaval 
which we term the Tudor period. For the readers of The 
Ancestor its chief interest lies in that passing of the old order 
which drove the ' ancient nobility,' as they styled themselves, 
to revolt, and which involved the rise of the ' new men,' 
founders often of houses afterwards ennobled and famous, 
upstarts, as they were deemed by the vieille souche^ who 
owed their rise to the favour of an upstart royal house. 
Not indeed that any one would have dared to call in question 
the Tudor pedigree ; its truth was proclaimed by subservient 
heralds, who ' found ' pedigrees with equal readiness for their 
sovereign, their clients and themselves.-^ 

Indeed, a passion for pedigrees appeared to have seized 
upon the people. In loyal imitation of their sovereigns they 
planted family trees, and the newer the lord of the manor the 
longer was the pedigree he required. Human nature repeats 
itself, and even in the present day the same phenomenon is 
observed. But the Tudor squires, or the heralds who aided 
and abetted their desires, proceeded to lengths which now, one 
hopes, if not unknown, are rare. It is possible indeed in these 
latter days to discern, if one may paraphrase the line, ' Shipways 
in stones and arms in rafter beams,' but these discoveries are 
apt to lead to disconcerting results. Forgery, at least, has an 
ugly sound, and although the newest of ' armorial gents ' may 
fall at times into bad hands, one cannot imagine him sitting 
down to forge charters in cold blood in order to prove that 
the founder of his house accompanied the Conqueror to 

In an article entitled ' The Companions of the Conqueror ' 

Compare p. 124 below. 


I pointed out that a charter had been forged tor this purpose 
in the case of the Mordaunts, and that the earliest portion 
of their pedigree in Burke s Peerage rested on this forgery.^ 
According to this precious document Eustace de St. Gilles 
made over to his brother ' Sir Osbert le Mordaunt ' the manor 
of Radwellj co. Bedford, which he had received ' by the muni- 
ficence of William, most illustrious King of the English, for 
the services rendered him in the Conquest by my father and 
myself.' In the same article I pointed out how descent from 
a follower of William, although so often and so glibly alleged, 
was in fact one of the rarest of distinctions, so rare indeed 
that it could hardly ever be claimed for a family with success. 
This conclusion appears to be the cause of an outburst of 
obvious irritation in the article with which the latest volume 
(xvi.) of the Surrey Archaeological Collections opens, namely the 
'Notes on the Manor and Parish of Woodmansterne,* by 
Colonel Lambert, F.S.A. To its statement that ' Radulphus 
de [sic] Lambert, son of Regnier (or Ragerinus), fourth son 
of Lambert I., Count of Mons and Louvaine, accompanied 
the Conqueror to England ' there is appended the footnote : — 

It is now demonstrated by the * higher criticism ' that few, if any, families 
came over with the Conqueror. That enterprising usurper seems to have 
invaded England singlehanded, if indeed the Norman invasion is not alto- 
gether an historical fiction (p. 15). 

It will doubtless occur to the readers of The Ancestor that the 
Norman Conquest may have taken place and an army have 
followed William, without that army including of necessity 
any person with the impossible name of ' Radulphus de 
Lambert,' and also without a family of Lambert being of 
necessity descended from that impossible person. There was, 
I believe, a Cornish family which claimed descent from a 
Roman centurion ; the rejection of that descent can hardly be 
said to imply that Julius Caesar never invaded Britain. 

My attention being drawn by this footnote to Colonel 
Lambert's article, I discovered that it contained transcripts 
of several remarkable charters, illustrating and proving the 
early pedigree of the Yorkshire Lamberts, from whom, 
according to his narrative, the Surrey Lamberts are de- 
scended. Here however there is some obscurity, for while 

1 Monthly Remezv (June, 1901), p. 107. 



the chart pedigree prefixed to the article begins only, like 
that in Burke s Landed Gentry^ with ' John Lambert of 
Woodmansterne, co. Surrey, 1301,' the narrative identifies 
this John as son of another John, ' who was a citizen of 
London, and had estates in Surrey and Norfolk, and in 21 
Edw. L . . . granted lands there to the Prior and convent 
of Our Lady of Great Massingham,' and affiliates the latter 
as a brother of ' Sir Henry Fitz Lambert, and a son of 
Richard Lambert, who had an estate in Lincolnshire and 
Norfolk/ We thus reach the parent stock of the York- 
shire Lamberts, from whom are descended, it is said, the 
Earls of Cavan. , 

Now ' the reader is referred,' in the article from which I 
quote, to ' " Lodge's Peerage (art. ' Cavan ')," ' among other 
authorities ; but there is a discrepancy, at the point of junction, 
between the two pedigrees. That of Lodge runs as follows : — 

Sir Edmund Lambert 
of Skipton 


Sir John of Skipton 


Thomas, sheriff" of 
London 1221, 
ob. s.p. 



Sir Thomas * of the county 
of Lincoln, who bore the 
family arms within a bordure 
ingrailed or and died with- 

out issue 

' 1 

When we turn to Colonel Lambert's version below we find 
the first John of Woodmansterne affiliated as a younger son 
unknown to Lodge, in whose pedigree he does not appear. 
Nor does Lodge connect this line of the family with Norfolk 
or with Surrey : — 

He grants one of the charters to be discussed below. 





Sir Edmund de 

"i/V] Lambert 

Thomas, sheriff of London 1221 







'Sir Henry John of Wood- 
Fitz Lambert' mansterne 

John of Wood- 
mansterne 1 301 


The point at issue is of some interest to intelligent 
genealogists, for it illustrates two of the failings common 
to makers of pedigrees, against which they have need to be 
more especially on their guard. Of these the first is the 
affiliation of an ancestor, or alleged ancestor, as the cadet of 
a known house, an affiliation usually hazardous and often 
without foundation.^ The other is the strange assumption 
that a surname which might originate independently in 
several different districts implies the common origin of all 
the families which bear it. Heraldry doubtless, or rather the 
pseudo-heraldry of ' the decadence,' has here much to answer 
for. Families of ' Russell ' or of ' Spencer ' might be as dis- 
tinct in origin as families of Smith or Brown ; yet modern 
heraldry is based on the dream that they are all akin. This 
is no less true ot the class to which ' Lambert ' belongs, 
namely that of surnames derived from the Christian name 
of an ancestor. In the age when surnames were taking 
form there might be found in different parts of the country 
individuals who happened to bear the same Christian name, 
but between whom of course there was no connexion what- 
ever. When the surname of their descendants was formed 
from this Christian name it would obviously imply no con- 
nexion between the families which bore it. 

If illustration be needed of so elementary a conclusion, 
the Surrey Lamberts themselves afford it. In modern times, 

^ See, for instance, the cases of Russell and of Spencer in my Studies in 
Peerage and Family History. 



especially in the eighteenth century, their distinctive Christian 
name has been the somewhat uncommon one of Daniel, which 
is found in no fewer than five generations in succession. Yet 
Colonel Lambert's pedigree of the house shows no connexion 
with the ' greatest ' man, in one sense, who ever bore the name, 
namely Daniel Lamibert, son of a Daniel Lambert, huntsman 
to Lord Stamford, who, according to the Dictionary of National 
Biography^ was born in 1770. If even this combination of 
names was a mere accidental coincidence, one need hardly 
labour the point that the surname Lambert by itself proves 
nothing. Every one has heard of Lambert Simnel, and his 
Christian name was by no means uncommon in the twelfth 
and thirteenth centuries. In Yorkshire, the county with 
which we have to deal, an early example of its use is found 
in ' old Lambert ' {Larnbertus senex)^ a peasant, who was made 
over with his holding, together with other peasants, in a fine 
of 1201.^ 

Until we are given definite proot that these Surrey 
Lamberts descended from a Yorkshire family of the name, 
we cannot accept the bearing of that surname in common 
as any evidence whatever of a common origin. Of the 
alleged younger brother of ^ Sir Henry Fitz Lambert ' 
Colonel Lambert tells us that — 

This John de \jlc'\ Lambert is the first who held lands in Woodmansteme. 
The estate was held freely of the Honour of Gloucester and paid no rent or 
service. In 1301 ^ John de [sic] Lambert, son of the above, conveyed to 
trustees for the use of his son John, who in 1333^ signed a terrier in favour 
of his son of the same name (pp. 15—6). 

If all this is proved, as alleged, by the family charters, why 
is the first ' John de Lambert ' altogether ignored in the chart 
pedigree prefixed to the article ^ If I were to say that I do 
not believe in the occurrence of either the elder or the younger 
' John de Lambert ' in the charters referred to, it might be 
thought harsh ; but when I point out that the writer of the 
article makes the elder ' John de Lambert ' a brother of ' Sir 
Henry Fitz Lambert,' it will at once be seen that he himself 
proves what ought indeed to be obvious, namely the impossible 

^ Yorhhlre Fines (Surtees Society), pp. 11-2. 

^ The footnote appended to these dates runs as follows : * Lambert charters. 
(Most of these charters are in the hands of Colonel William Lambert, B.S.C, 
. . . others belong to Mrs. Lambert of Bansted, and some to the writer of 
this article.)' 


character of the name 'John de Lambert.' This impossible 
character is a point of much importance in considering the 
earlier pedigree of the family, as we shall see when we come 
to deal with it. But at present the point is this : it is not 
claimed that the family charters carry us further back than 
' John de Lambert of Woodmansterne ' in 130 1 ; it is equally 
certain that Lodge's pedigree, based on the earlier charters, 
knows nothing of John or of Woodmansterne. How does 
Colonel Lambert get across the hiatus ? He asserts that the 
above John was son of another John of Woodmansterne, and 
that this latter John was a brother of the Henry in Lodge's 
pedigree (who appears to have had nothing to do with Surrey 
or even with Norfolk). And for neither of these assertions, 
so far as I can find, does he even attempt to give any evidence 


The adjacent parishes of Woodmansterne and Bansted 
comprised a tract of wild downland to the south-west of 
Croydon, on which, it is claimed, the Lamberts have resided 
for full six centuries. To Colonel Lambert's article there is 
prefixed a tabular pedigree of dimensions quite exceptional in 
Archaeological Transactions. No apology therefore need be 
offered for commenting on what is published in so conspicuous 
a manner. Not indeed that I propose to challenge it. Whether 
the pedigree can be proved in its earlier stages or not, it is 
perfectly possible that we have here one of those striking 
cases in which a house of yeoman stock preserves, century 
after century, its close association with a district, its eventual 
disappearance in modern times being happily averted in the 
case before us by association with the City. 

The pedigree in Manning and Bray's Surrey commences, 
like that in the county visitation of 1623, with John Lambert, 
who bought, in 151 5, Perrots manor in Bansted. Observing 
that this John had purchased Shortes Place in Woodman- 
sterne in 4 Hen. VIIL (15 12-3), and that Garratts in Bansted 
was purchased by his eldest son J<eflFery in 1537 ; and observ- 
ing further that John's will in 1533 (the first, it would seem, 
of the family wills) proves him to have held lands also in 
Coulsdon, Chipsted, etc., we shall hardly be mistaken in con- 
cluding that this John Lambert was the founder of the family's 
fortunes. And the student of our social history would no 



less confidently suggest that he was a successful sheep 
tarmer. For, as I have remarked in dealing with ' The Rise 
of the SpencerSj' at about the same period, — 

There was a time in England, under the early Tudors, when sheep farm- 
ing meant a road to fortune, as it did in our own time for Australia's ^ shep- 
herd kings.' Those were days when a sheep's wool proved indeed a ' golden 
fleece.' ^ 

Indeed of Woodmansterne, his home, we read in Colonel 
Lambert's paper that ' most of the parish was downland, or 
sheepwalk, as it was called. . . . In 1635 Christopher Rythe 
had a sheepwalk of 350 acres, and Roger Lambert another 
adjoining it ' (p. 6).- 

It was then the custom for successful sheep farmers to 
extend their operations by investing their profits in the 
acquisition of more farms ; and it was also customar}' with 
those yeomen who did not aspire to found a family of county 
rank to bequeath lands to their younger sons. Jeffery 
Lambert appears accordingly to have left small estates to 
each of his seven sons at his death in 1567. The subse- 
quent devolution of these properties may be traced in Colonel 
Lambert's paper. The pedigree in ' Manning and Bray ' 
(ii. 589) is very imperfect and unsatisfactory down to Sir 
Daniel Lambert, Lord Mayor of London in 1741, who 
bought the family manor of Perrots from his elder brother, 
and married a daughter of Mr. John Wilmot, ' citizen and 
haberdasher of London.' The manor then descended thus : — 

J u d i t h = Edward Lambert 

dau. of 
* Mr. John 
casher of 
London' ^ 

of Bermondsev, 
' woolstapler,' bur. 
Banstead, 1761 

Sir Daniel Lambert 
Lcrd Mayor 1741. 
Bcu?ht Perrcts 

Nicholas Lambert = Elizabeth dau. 
of London, * citi- of ' Mr. John 
zen and vintner,' Carpenter, 
1755 citizen and 

vintner ' 

Elizabeth = Daniel Lambert of London, 
dau. and | merchant, heir to his uncle 
co-heir I Sir Daniel 

1 Studies in Peerage end Famihj History, p. 282. 

2 Manning and Bray mention the extensive sheep farming at Woodman- 
sterne and Bansted less than a century' ago. 

^ All these descriptions are taken &om the monumental inscriptions in 
Bansted Church published by Manning and Bray. 


When t|ie family entered its pedigree at the visitation ot 
1623 ^ they appear to have made no claim to arms or crest.^ 
Subsequently however they are found using ' Gules 3 narcis- 
suses argent ' (as Colonel Lambert blazons the coat), arms 
which have a curious history. So far as I know, it would 
seem, from the evidence generally accessible, that the first 
appearance of this coat is as a quartering used by the 
Lamberts in the Yorkshire visitation of 1585. The Lambert 
coat at that visitation is reproduced, in the tabular pedigree 
given in Whitaker's Craven^ from Harl. MS. 1487, fo. 
354b, and the true Lambert coat is obviously that which 
is shown in the first quarter, viz. ' Gu. a chev. between 3 
lambs passant arg., a chief chequy or and az.'^ This some- 
what complicated coat is suggestive of a Tudor grant. In the 
second quarter is a coat which appears to be ' Gu. an annu- 
let (? or) between 3 roses (?) arg.,' which coat is assigned by 
Papworth to a Yorkshire family of ' Sipling.' There is little 
doubt, I think, that the charges shown are roses ; but in 
Dugdale's visitation (1666) they are shown as 6-foils,^ and 
the annulet has disappeared. The blazon must have re- 
mained uncertain, for the Irish families of Lambert or 
Lambart are found using ' Gu. 3 narcissusses arg. pierced of 
the field ' (Earl of Cavan), ' Gu. 3 cinquefoils arg.,' and ' Gu. 
3 cinquefoils pierced arg.'^ But this coat, as I have shown, 
was not a Lambert coat at all. In the Lincolnshire visitation ^ 
(1592) it is still shown, as in the Yorkshire ones, as the second 
quarter, and we only know that the Yorkshire house adopted 
it at some period in lieu of their original coat, perhaps as a 
simpler and finer one. It is found, according to Whitaker's 
Craven^ on the monumental inscription to the last Lambert of 

The undifferenced coat, ' Gules 3 narcissusses argent,' 
appears on a mysterious ^ brass ' which, in Colonel Lambert's 

^ See p. 6 above. 

2 According to their visitation pedigree in Surrey Archaolo^cal Collections, 
vol. xi. 

^ (3rd ed.) facing p. 256. 

^ * Whitaker,' as above, from Harl. MS. 1394, fo. 200. 
^ Papworth, pp. 861, 872 ; and Burke'' s Landed Gentry, 
« Ed. Metcalfe. ^ gee below. 

^ Yet John Lambert, described in the pedigree as * of Woodmansterne,' 
directs in his will (1533) that he is to be buried in the Qhurchyard of Ban- 



paper, heads the inscriptions in Woodmansterne church. 
Unknown, it seems, to Manning and Bray, although its 
wording is Latin and in orthodox black letter, it is inscribed, 
' In memoriam multorum generum \_sic~\ antiquae Domus 
Lambert de Woodmansterne in hac Ecclesia a tempore Regis 
Edwardi primi sepultorum ^ quorum animabus propicietur 
Dominus Deus.' The closing words savour more of David 
Eiginbrod than of the middle ages, while ' generum ' (families) 
appears to be here used for ' generations,' a quaint delusion 
not unworthy of the Skipton charters at the end of the 
paper. It was on the strength of those same charters that 
there was erected in the Calton chapel at Kirby Malgdale, 
Yorkshire, a monumental inscription to the last Lambert of 
Calton, bearing the same undifFerenced coat,^ but worded 
in our mother tongue. 

He died the 14th day of March in the year of our Lord 1701, being 
the last heir male, in whom that ancient family of y® Lamberts in a line from 
William the Conqueror (and related to him by marriage) is now extinct. 

The rebuff to a ' higher criticism ' which had not then 
been born may gratify the Surrey Lamberts, but the closing 
words will not. 

It appears to be implied by this strange ' brass' that the old 
arms of the Lamberts of Woodmansterne were ' Gu. 3 narcis- 
susses arg.,' and this is also suggested by Burke s Landed Gentry 
(ed. 1894), where the arms are given as 'Gu. 3 narcissus 
flowers arg. with a canton or, for difference (added 171 7).' 
But ' Papworth ' throws on their origin quite another light, 
giving them as ' Gu. 3 narcissus flowers arg. a canton or. 
Lambert, London and Surrey. Granted 1737 ' (p. 862), 
that is, in the time of Alderman (afterwards Lord Mayor) 

The Lamberts had previously usea the undifferenced coat of 
Lord Cavan's family ^-jjith the crest of the Yorkshire house^ for it 
is found, according to Colonel Lambert's paper (p. 18), on 
a ledger stone in Chaldon church to the memory of William 
Lambert, who died in ' 1656 ' ; and it figures accordingly in 
one corner of the chart pedigree which he gives. When they 
were granted a crest they had to take a variety of the centaur 

1 It is blazoned by Whitaker as * three cinquefoils,' instead of * 3 narcis- 

^ Whitaker's Craven (3rd ed.), p. 249. 


or sagittary of the Irish Lamberts, which was sharply differ- 
enced from the female monster of the Yorkshire house ; but, 
on the other hand, in accordance with the practice of the 
College,^ they were allowed to bear the coat they had usurped 
with only a canton for difference, and thereby to represent 
their brand-new coat as a genuine old one to which there had 
merely been ' added ' a canton or. 

A considerable portion of the article I am discussing 
(pp. 14-20) is devoted to a history and description of 
'Lamberts Oaks, now "The Oaks,"' the house which gave 
its name to the famous race. We read that ' The Oaks 
originally belonged to the Clares as part of their manor of 
Woodmansterne, and the estate appears to have been granted 
to the Lamberts, temp. Henry III., by Gilbert de Clare, Earl 
of Gloucester.' Nothing is offered in support of this sug- 
gestion, and the phrase that ' the estate was held freely of the 
Honour of Gloucester and paid no tax or service ' only 
means, I presume, that it was held ' in free socage ' — ' the 
great residuary tenure,' as it has been termed.^ What the 
' estate ' really was, and what sort of a house there was on it, 
one cannot well make out. We read that in later days 
' Roger Lambert, the fifth son, inherited the Woodmansterne 
estates, and in 1584 removed from Lamberts Oaks to Shortes 
Place' ; but as early as 1533 his grandfather (alleged 'of 
Woodmansterne ') styles himself in his will ' of^ Banstead,' 
where he lived in a copyhold tenement. Lamberts Oaks is 
not mentioned again by Col. Lambert as a residence for nearly 
two centuries. It seems to have been leased to Lord Derby 
about 1760 for ninety-nine years, and the views given in the 
article show it as a stately castellated structure 'circa 1780.' 

It will often be found useful to refer to the old county 
histories for evidence of facts known to their writers, or still 
within recollection at the time when they were compiled. 
Manning and Bray, for instance, wrote as follows : — 

The house called * The Oaks,' a hunting seat of the Earl of Derby and 
much enlarged by him, was o?'iginally an alehouse^ and was purchased by 
General Burgoyne, who fitted it up, and came to it to hunt and shoot. He 
sold it to the Earl, who has inclosed much of the common field, and has 
made a plantation two miles round.* 

It is to the same worthy authors that we are indebted 

1 See The Ancestor, ii. 47. ^ History of English Law, i. 275. 

^ The italics are my own. * History of Surrey (1809), ii. 460. 



for a glimpse of Camberwell in those now far-off days when 
London was largely dependent for its milk on the pastures of 
Peckham Rye.^ Writing in all simplicit}' of Lord Llangat- 
tock's grandfather, they observe that — 

Mr. Rolls vras son of one who liad acquired a large fortune as a cow-keeper. 

After expending a great sum. in completing this house (which had been nearly 
nnished by his father), raising artificial mounts, planting, etc., he pulled it 
down in 1S12, selling in lots the materials as they stood.^ 

Embalmed in our count)' histories is much ingenuous 
information on ' seats ' and those who dwelt therein in the 
days when London was roused from sleep by the war-cry of 
the house of RoUs. 


We will now turn to the Lamberts of Skipton, the York- 
shire house whose supposed arms were assumed by the Surrey 
Lamberts, and whose illustrious descent is claimed bv Colonel 
Lambert as his own. His pedigree is given in narrative 
form, but I here append it in the form more convenient for 
reference, tracing it down to that Sir Edmund whom he 
makes the grandfather of the first Lambert of Woodmansterne 
in Surrey. 

* Laiabert I. 
Cc-nt of Mons and Louvaine 
[d. 1004] 

' Reg-nier (or Ragerinus) ' 
fourth son 


'Radulphus de Lambert' Peter ce Ros 

William de Warrenne ' Hugo Fitz Radulph de Lambert ' = Matilda 

' (see charters i, 2, and 3) ' 

' I - . .1 

Roger de BeJ.omonte = Gundreca = William Geofirev ce Manaev:-.e 

Earl of Warwick j '(charter 4)' Earl of Essex 

'Henry de Lambert,' = Alice 
'standard-bearer to 
King Henry II.' 
'(charters 5 and 6)' 


h n 

'(charter 7)' 

' Sir Edmund ce Lambert of Skipton ' 
^ History of Surrey (1902), iii. 398. ^ Jb-^_ {]\^ ^03, note. 


This is virtually identical with the pedigree given by 
Lodge, save that the latter replaces ' Regnier (or Ragerinus),' 
fourth son of the count, by ' Rodolph the third son/ But 
Lodge adds the interesting information that the second son 
Baldwin was ancestor of the Lambertini of Italy, of whom was 
Pope Benedict XIV., ' one ^ of the most illustrious families ' 
of Bologna. Here, it will be seen, we have a case parallel 
to that of the Fitz Geralds and the Gherardini ; ^ the fact that 
two families living in different countries were descended from 
ancestors who happened to bear the same Christian name was 
seized on as proof of a common origin. 

I have dealt above with this delusion, but Mr. Freeman 
dealt with it so forcibly that it may here be well to quote his 
words : — 

A man bears as his surname one of the ancient English names which 
have gone out of use as English names. He finds in early English history 
some one who bears that name as a Christian name. He first mistakes the 
Christian name for a surname, and fancies that the ancient worthy bore the 
same surname, perhaps an unusual one, as himself Having got thus far, it 
would be impossible for any man to keep himself back from the next step, to 
refrain from claiming the ancient worthy as a forefather. 

Mr. Freeman proceeded to take as an instance ' the myth 
of Levinge,' by which that family claimed ' Leovingus, the 
Archbishop of Canterbury who crowned Canute,' and 
* Livingus,' Bishop of Worcester, as its collateral ancestors. 
Of this claim he bluntly wrote : — 

What is there to connect them with the house of Levinge rather than the 
house of Snooks ? Simply that the hapless pedigree maker, in his ignorance 
of the ways of the eleventh century, took their Christian name for a surname. 
There is exactly as much sense to connect the modern family ot Levinge with 
either of these bishops as there is to connect any family called Edwards or 
Edmunds with any of the kings who bore their names. ^ 

The pedigree with which we are dealing is another instance 
in point. An English family of Lambert in search ot a fitting 
ancestor pitches upon Count Lambert who lived in 1004 as 
the origin of its house and of its name. If they had claimed 
that his descendants bore ' Fitz Lambert ' as a surname, that 

^ * This account,' we read in Lodge, * was given to Mr. O'Sullivan of 
this kingdom by Pope Benedict, who claimed the relationship subsisting be- 
tween him and Lambart, Earl of Cavan.' 

^ See The Ancestor, i. 1 20. 

^ * Pedigrees and Pedigree-Makers ' {Contemporary Review, xxx. 23). 



claim would have been logical at least, although such sur- 
names, as a matter of fact, did not take form till a later period. 
But, unluckily for themselves, they seem to have thought that 
' de Lambert ' would sound nicer and more territorial : that 
such a name was impossible was a thought that did not trouble 

But what, it may be asked, were the proofs they produced 
of their descent from that ' Radulphus de Lambert ' who 
' accompanied the Conqueror to England ' ? Let the ' higher 
criticism ' hide its head ! They produced the same flawless 
evidence as the Feildings for their Hapsburg pedigree, a series 
of original charters — in their own possession. We ought to 
feel indebted to Colonel Lambert for clearing up the mystery. 
He found in the possession of Sir Arthur Middleton — the 
representative of John Lambert, the famous Commonwealth 
general, through his granddaughter and heiress — a family 
pedigree on which were transcribed forty-two charters, which 
were solemnly 'attested at the foot thereof by all three of 
the Kings of Arms and by one of the heralds. With these 
attestations his paper closes ; for the writer, doubtless, was 
firmly convinced that there was nothing left for the ' higher 
criticism ' but to ' smile a sickly smile and curl up on the floor.' 

A well known antiquary had, it is true, handled two of 
the originals of these charters about a century ago, and 
bluntly pronounced them to be forgeries. But that rash man 
knew not that they had been proclaimed genuine by the offi- 
cial heads of that august body, ' His Majesty's College of 
Arms.' On this hapless antiquary, therefore, no time is 
wasted. Colonel Lambert disposes of him thus : — 

The originals, with the exception of Nos. 5 and 8, were in the possession 
of Charles Lambart of Painstown, Esq. (a cadet of the Cavan branch of the 
family) when Lodge wrote his Peerage. Nos. 5 and 8 were in the possession 
of Lord Ribblesdale when Whitaker wrote his {History of Craven, and he 
(Whitaker) tries to prove them to be forgeries. (He misquotes both charters, 
and bases his objections to No. 8 on the use of the word * Campus,' which, 
it will be seen, does not appear in the charter at all).^ He appears to have 
been ignorant of the existence of the others ' (p. 26). 

1 It would appear, however unlikely it may seem, that they did not see any 
difference between *Fitz' and *De.' For the pedigree in the Lincolnshire visita- 
tion of 1592 (ed. Metcalfe) runs thus: (i) Hugh Fitz Lambart, (2) Henry 
Fitz Lambart, (3) John Fitz Lambart of Skipton, (4) Edmond Fitz Lambart, 
(5) John Fitz Lambart, 1247, (6) John de Lambart, (7) Thomas de Lambart, 
great-grandfather of Henry de Lambart of Skipton {Genealogist, vi. 263-4). 

2 The words within parentheses are a footnote here in Colonel Lambert's 



It is precisely ' the others/ the text of which the writer 
has now brought to light, that decisively prove the forgery. 
But let us first hear what Whitaker himself had to say on 
the subject. 

A disposition to prefer humble truth to splendid fiction has compelled me 
to assign the last place in this account to the following circumstances. 

If we are to yield implicit assent to the common accounts of this family, 
their origin must be allowed to be very ancient and even more than noble. It 
is said that Radulph de Lambart was a companion of the Conqueror, and was 
father of Hugh, father of Sir William, who married Gundred daughter of 
William, Earl Warren, by Gundred, daughter of William the Conqueror ; Sir 
William and Gundred had Henry Lambart standard-bearer to Henry II., who 
married Alice, sister of William de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, and had issue 
John, who resided at Skipton, and Sir Edmund, whose grandson John lived at 
Long Preston, and had Godfrey, who had John, married to Elizabeth daughter 
of Giles Whitaker, Esq., by whom he had Thomas Lambert of Skipton. 

The former part of this descent is sufficiently magnificent, but c/ouds and 
darkness rest upon It. It is well for the compilers however that their authorities 
are yet extant.^ 

Whitaker then proceeds to quote from the two original 
charters of those on which the pedigree is based, and com- 
ments on them as follows : — 

It now remains to be seen whether these instruments will bear the critical 

I here quote side by side with his extracts the text of these 
charters as given by Colonel Lambert. 


Pateat me Robert' de Rumlee, mili- 
tem, libere donare dil'o cons'o meo 
Edmundo de Lambert, militi VI bov. 
ter. in Skypton, juxta campum dicti 
Edm'i, Test. Gab'r de Stapleton, 
Antonio de Lambart, Henr. Mydelton, 
Wyllmo de Bushford et al. Seal, a 
lion circumscribed. Sigil. Walteri 

Colonel Lambert 
Pateat universis ad quos hec presens 
\stc\ pervenerit me Robertum de 
Rumleij militem libere donare di- 
lecto consanguineo meo Edmundo de 
Lambart milite \sic\ sex carucatas terre 
in Skipton teneud' de me et meis a 
Deo grate [!] prout ego teneo meas 
terras de rege nostro in cujus rei testi- 
monium ego predictus Robertus de 
Rumley \sic\ sigillum meum apposui 
his testibus GabrielF Stapleton An- 
thonie \slc\ de Lambarte Henrico 
Midleton Willmo de Rushford cum 
multis aliis. Dat' in die sancti 
Thome Apostoli &ca. 

History oj Craven (1805), ist ed. p. 184. 



Henricus &ca. Sciatis me conces- 
sisse et hac carta confirmasse Henrico 
de Lambart vexillifero meo et Alicie 
de Mandevile uxori ejus partitionem 
de terris in com. lEverw.' fact' inter 
eos et monachos de Sc'o Sancto et P. 
de Saltmers. His test. Rogero archiep. 
Eborac. et Roberto ep'o Lincoln, et 
Ric. de Chanvilla, et Jocel de Balolio, 
et Roberto Clifford, mil. Apud Cas- 
trum de Leir.^ 

Henricus . . . Sciatis me conces- 
sisse et hac mea carta confirmasse 
Henrico de Lambarte vexillifero meo 
et Alicias de Maundeville uxori ejus 
partitionem illam de terris in comitat' 
euerwycke fact' inter eos et monachos 
de Sancto Sancto [!] et Petrum de 
Saltmarshe militem. Quare volo . . . 
His testibus Rogero, Archiepiscopo 
Eboracensi et Roberto Episcopo Lin- 
colniensi et Richardo Chavilla et 
Jovell de Balliolo et Roberto Clifford 
milite apud Castrum de Leir. 

Whitaker's objection to the first charter is that its hand- 
writing is that of ' the reign of Henry III., whereas the 
supposed grantor lived in that of the Conqueror ' ; that the 
addition miles is an anachronism ; that the word campus is 
wrongly used ; that ' six oxgangs are here granted, but it 
appears from the papers of John Lambert, now before me, 
that the property of the family at Skipton, held under the 
castle, was only two oxgangs, for which they paid a rent sec ot 
xii. d.' ; that the names of the witnesses are not such as occur 
in charters of the period ; that they ' are none of them names 
of Craven families ' ; that the seal is not that of the grantor ; 
all which, with one other, make eight objections in all. 
Whitaker's conclusion was as follows : — 

And now, if the reader's faith in these proofs of the early magnificence of 
the Lamberts be shaken, and if he be further disposed to enquire where were 
the estates which enabled the family to match with a sister of Mandevile Earl 
of Essex ; or by what circumstances they were reduced to a few oxgangs at 
Skipton, he may be reminded of the innumerable causes of mutability in all 
human things, and the great deficiency of family evidences at that early period. 

But an easier solution of the difficulty remains by ascribing these docu- 
ments, the genuineness of which is contradicted by such a body of evidence 
within and without, to a crafty and aspiring lawyer in the reign of Henry VIIL, 
who, not content with having raised his family to opulence, might resolve to 
dignify their early history by alliances with the ancient lords of Craven. 

In his second edition (1812) Whitaker thus maintained 
his ground : 

With respect to the two charters on which some persons have grounded 
their opinion of the early consequence of this family, I have already given 
several reasons, not one of which has been refuted, to prove that they are for- 
geries. I think so still, and in place of a very long investigation (longer by 

^ The three letters in special type represent ' Old English ' ones. 


far than the subject deserved) shall now content myself with saying that one of 
them, to a critical eye, manifestly appears to be written on an erasure ; and 
that from the Roll of Thomas Lord Clifford, 15th Henry VI., it may be 
proved that Winterwell Hall itself, the possession which first brought the Lam- 
berts to Skipton, was then, and not before, granted to one Joan (the name is 
worn out in the MS.). Since the first edition of this work was published I 
have met with some charters drawn by John Lambert, who in his earlier days 
was a scrivener, in which he availed himself of his antiquarian knowledge to 
copy the formulae of more ancient times. What he is known to have done in 
the course of business he was able to do out of vanity or whim ; and it may be 
some consolation to his friends that whatever such a forgery detracts from his 
honesty is to be added to his skill. 

The rental of his paternal property was no more than j^io is, 6d. The 
whole of which he died possessed, in or about 1569, was ^^125 6s. zd. . . . 
and the man who in an age when there was no commerce augmented his pro- 
perty in a twelvefold proportion cannot have been wanting in diligence, dex- 
terity, or good fortune (pp. 196-7). 

It is no answer to say that Whitaker ' misquotes ' the 
charters,^ for he took his text from the professed originals, 
while Colonel Lambert had only before him the transcripts of 
those charters on the pedigree. But this point need not be 
pressed, for the text given by Colonel Lambert is even more 
damaging than that which Whitaker supplies. 

Robert de Rumelli, lord of Skipton, was contemporary, if 
not with the Conqueror, at least with his sons ; for his daughter 
and heir was in possession of his fief not later than 1120.^ 
This being so, his alleged charter is seen to be a clumsy for- 
gery, which any one with the slightest knowledge of these 
matters would detect at once* Apart from the reasons given 
by Whitaker, the anachronism of the dating clause would con- 
demn it instantly, while his alleged kinsman Edmund ^ de 
Lambart ' actually figures in the family pedigree several gener- 
ations later ! If the charter professes to grant six ^ carucates ' 
(not ' bovates ') it only makes the matter worse ; and as for the 
text, its grammar and construction verge on midsummer 

The alleged charter of Henry II., if not so wild, is bad 
enough ; Whitaker pitched, of course, as a critic, on ' Roberto 
Clifford milite,' and according to Colonel Lambert there is 
another miles in the charter. But why dwell on these points 

^ See p. 1 3. 

2 He was dealt with by Whitaker and by Mr. Stapleton (in his paper on 
Holy Trinity Priory, York), and quite recently by Mr. Holmes in his Chartu- 
lary of St. John of Pontefract, pp. 392, 413. 




when ' monachi de Sancto Sancto ' is found in both versions, 
although no human being could make sense thereof ? 

But let us come to grips with the imposture. To do so I 
fix at once on charter ' No. 5.' This is the charter that is 
meant to prove the Mandeville alliance. By it William de 
Mandeville, Earl of Essex, confirms to John ' de Lambart,' son 
of Henry ' de Lambart,' and of Alice the earl's sister, ' et suis 
omnibus [sic] ilia tenementa que Gaufiidus de Maundevill comes 
frater mens eis dedit^ in villis de Euerwyke, Skipton, et 
Broughton [sic\' etc. This is decisive. It proves that the 
forger actually imagined Earl William to have inherited the 
Skipton fief from his brother, instead of which he only held it 
in right of his wife. Consequently Earl Geoffrey had no more 
right to make grants in Skipton or Broughton (which was 
part of the Skipton fief) than I have. The relationship was 
this : — 

Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex 

Henry de Lambart = Alice Geoffrey de Mandeville William de Mandeville = Avicia 

I Earl of Essex, ob. s.p. Earl of Essex, ob. s.p. Lady of 

yohn de Lambart 

The italicized names are those supplied by the forged charters, 
which prove in Colonel Lambert's words that 'Henry de 
Lambert . . . married Alice, daughter of Geoffrey de Man- 
deville, Earl of Essex' (p. 15). As the brother earls shown 
above both died without issue, and as their great fief passed to 
the descendants of their aunt, the alleged pedigree is thereby 
further shown to be false. 

We can now make merry over the remaining charters 
which are here so rashly exposed to the attentions of the 
' higher criticism.' Five of them relate to gifts to the Abbey 
of St. Guthlac of Croyland, of which the name is imperishably 
connected with the forgeries of the pseudo-Ingulf. That of 
King Henry II. appears to have a double purpose : it was 
intended to support the Mandeville match, and at the same 
time to prove that Henry ' de Lambart ' was then the king's 
' standard-bearer,' an honour which even now is sometimes 
coveted or claimed. 

The forger, having thus provided himself with an ancestor 

^ The italics are mine. 


who bore the king's standard, resolved upon a higher flight. 
Long before the days of Dumas and of Mr. Stanley Weyman 
the vision of single combat dazzled the romancer's eyes. The 
forger decided to despatch his standard-bearing ancestor to 
Scotland, apparently as an envoy, and to make him abandon a 
duel which he was to have fought with Alexander ' de ' Oli- 
fard, by permission of the marshal of England (a title then 
unknown), at the instigation of the Scottish king, who, safe- 
guarding the ' dignity ' of the combatants, decides that they 
shall shake hands and swear to be good friends ever after. 
All this is made to happen in 11 67. The forger was liberal 
with his ' de,' which he not only claimed for his ancestors, but 
placed (wrongly) before ' Olifard,' ^ and even, in the charter of 
Henry II., before ' Lister,' intending, doubtless, to gratify a 

One cannot do justice to this concoction without quoting 
its essential portion : — 

Talis facta est compositio inter Henricum de Lambart legatum ab Anglia 
et Alexandrum de Olifard militem quos ad Judicium finaliter per me fiend' 
Henricus Rex Angliae [j^V] totaliter referebat in causa duelii ipsis concessi per 
marescallum Anglie propter quasdam accusationes per unum adversum alt'rum 
habitas et fidei interpositione utrinque affirmata scilicet quod coram me veniet 
uterque eorum armatus paratus ad congressum et me suadente totam calum- 
pniam quam quisque habebat adversus alterum confestim deponet et remittet 
ex corde et dignitas utriusque salva erit et jungent dextras et super Evangelia 
jurabunt se in eternum futures veros amicos salva officia quod [j/V] seorsim 
gerunt adversus [sk] regem suum. 

A dreary and a bungling forgery at best. If the artist had 
only enjoyed the advantage of consulting Madox's Formulare 
he would have made a better job of it ; but, as it was, he filled 
his documents with dog-Latin renderings of the language of his 
own day. And every one of the nine documents is tarred with 
the same brush, for ' de Lambart ' appears in all. What of the 
thirty-three others, of which we have not yet been privileged 
to see either the originals or the transcripts ? That originals 
there were we know from Lodge, who states (i. 344) of one 
of these charters containing the ' most solemn benediction ' of 
Robert, Bishop of Lincoln in 1 1 64, that ' the original, now 
upwards of 600 years old, with the seal of white wax of a 
bishop in his pontificals ... is a great curiosity, and was in 
the hands of the said Mr. Lambart.' 

He also makes a * David de Olifard ' a vv^itness. 


I have used the phrase ' a great forgery ' as iustified not 
only by the number of the documents, but by the fact that 
pseudo-originals, with seals attached, were produced. But the 
forgery also attained greatness by imposing on all the official 
heads of the College of Arms, to say nothing of one of the 
heralds. Their attestations, as I said above, are printed by 
Colonel Lambert. Garter Segar formally attests : — 

. . . hanc sntiquam genealogiam Equestris familis Lambertoram vidi et 

Camden, as Clarenceux, commits himself to the authenticity 
of the charters : — 

. . . ocuiis meis vidi evidentias et chartas antiquas ex qnibus haec gene- 
alogia autentice probatur quod non potui non testari eandemque manus meas 
subscriptione approbare. 

St. George, as Xorroy, recognized the charters, seals and all, 
as genuine : — 

. . . et vidi et perlegi scripta autentica cum sigillis appensis antiqua hujus 
familia ' [sic'\ et nominis Lambertomm tangentia, in fide et attestatione quonim 
manum meum apposui. 

Treswell, Somerset, brought up the rear : — 

Ego Somersett Heraldus ad anna genealogiam hanc antiquas Lambertornm 
familice et specificatas evidentias quam verissime [!] approbatam attestor. 

Somerset, I presume, was the herald specially employed in 
the business, and Treswell, the College might say, in the words 
applied to Beau Brummel's tie, was ' one of our failures.* For 
its members have always been acutely alive to one another's 
infirmities. Of Treswell, we find. Noble writes : — 

He was a ver^- troublesome, disagreeable member of tiie College, always 
engaged in something which involved him in misfortunes . . . The College 
were so disgusted with his and York^s conduct, that May i6, 1620, they 
complained of them as common disturbers of the peace of their society. 
December 4., 1621, he and York . . . were sent to the Marshalsea.^ 

By a curious fatality ' Somerset Herald ' seems to have 
proved an unfortunate title down to quite recent times. I 
am only speaking of course of past members of the College. 
For instance, when the eighth Duke of Somerset succeeded 
his kinsman in the title (1750) a pretender seems to have 
started up, backed by the then Somerset Herald, Warburton 

^ History of the College of Jrms, p. 211. He was however praised by 
Dethick for his skill. 


by name. The Duke's agent wrote that Garter Anstis — for 
whose work on seals . and charters we have cause to be 
thankful — was giving him his assistance — 

in order to detect the attempt to impose the false pedigree on the Crown. It 
was made out by one Warburton, Somerset Herald ; he is a man of very in- 
different, if not bad, character ; one that is not at all agreeable to his grace of 
Norfolk, nor to himself, and that he would be glad of having out. 

The writer, proceeding on the sound principle of setting 
a herald to catch a herald, applied to Anstis to find him 
' an honest man * in the College : — 

As I apprehended this Warburton would be there, by Mr. Anstis's recom- 
mendation, one Mr. Pomfret, another of the Heralds' office (superior in know- 
ledge and an honest man), attended to prevent Warburton's imposing on the 
Attorney . . . This pedigree they have trumped up is, I think, a forgery, for 
Warburton must know it is false, and therefore wilful, and as it cannot be sup- 
ported but by oath, it must be introductive of perjury. He must know it to 
be false, because, etc., etc.^ 

If the College resents these revelations it has only itself to 

But, it may be said, all this happened long ago. Why revive it ? The 
answer is that it has become absolutely necessary to insist upon these facts 
since the appearance of the present attempts to exalt the paramount 
authority of the officers of arms and of their records.^ 

When the author of Armorial Families admits that without the 
help of a member of the College he could have ' done but 
little,' and, in return, ' does poojah ' at the shrine, we are forced 
to examine, in a phrase of *X,' ^ his little tin gods.' ^ When 
we are assured by the same writer that — 

the public never hears of the hard work, the careful and minute examination 
of pedigrees, the safeguards against mistakes, or of the endless labour and re- 
search which, without fee or reward [!] or any publicity, different Officers of 
Arms undertake and perform, and have done for ages past,^ in order that they 
may record or make accessible facts and evidence which will perhaps be wanted 
in the future,^ 

it becomes desirable that ' the public ' should learn something 
of the true character and value of these records. 

^ Annals of the Seymours (1902), p. 523. This is an interesting addition 
to the history of the College of Arms. 

^ Studies in Peerage and Family History, p. 309. 
^ The Right to Bear Arms, p. xiv. 

* The italics are my own. ^ The Right to Bear Arms, p. 181. 



The critical treatment of the Heralds and their so-called * records ' has 
been made necessary by recent attempts to exalt the authority of their docu- 
ments and to terrorize the public in the matter of arms by crude and violent 

It is natural in view of the stress laid on the authority of 
these documents that Colonel Lambert should appeal to the 
verdict of the Kings of Arms on a pedigree and the evidence 
supporting it as decisive. But what their witness really proves 
is the worthlessness of such authority. When the three Kings 
and Somerset Herald attested the Lambert pedigree it was in 
the days when the British Solomon rejoiced in his descent from 
' Brute the most noble founder of the Britains,'^ even as his pre- 
decessor had exulted in her heraldic pedigree from Adam.^ What 
have heralds to do with history ? What with facts ? Among 
their dead legends they linger still. For Burke s Peerage^ as 
we know. Ingulf is no forgery ; for the officer of arms, Geoffi-ey 
of Monmouth is no mere romancer. From his sacred cell he 
supplies the arms of King Guiderius or of King Coel,* or gravely 
attempts a pedigree of King Arthur in the best style of the 
Heralds' visitations.^ The college of augurs, as Mr. Barron 
would say, retains its ancient reputation : Plus fa change plus 
cest la meme chose. 



Much light is thrown upon the pedigree of Lambert of Banstead by the 
will of John Lambert of Banstead, the first ancestor assigned to the family in 
the Heralds' Visitation. It is a characteristic will of a copyholder of the yeo- 
man or substantial husbandman class. It is to be found in a register of wills of 
the Archdeaconry of Surrey (45 Heats). The will is dated 19 June 1533, 
and was proved 4 August 1533. No title of gentleman is assumed by the 
testator or applied by him to any of his kinsfolk, although the title is used by 
him when he refers to the overseers of his will, who as was customary at that 
period are people of superior rank and influence, being in this case members of 
the gentle families of Scott of Camberwell and Skinner of Reigate. The tes- 
tator desires to be buried by his children in the churchyard, and not in the 
church, of Banstead, again a significant point, for the gentry of his time sought, 
in the great majority of cases, burial within the church. His wife Joan is to 
have the occupation of his dwelling house in Banstead, a copyhold messuage, 
and as his lands belonging to it in Banstead are insufficient to maintain the said 

^ Studies in Feei'age and Family History, p. xv. 

2 Ibid. p. xi. ^ See p. 124 below. 

^ TIhe Ancestor, ii. 192. ^ Genealogist (1902), xviii. 215. 


house, he adds a rent charge of 40J. out of Perrott's Manor, which manor he 

In a set of Chancery proceedings [C^an. pro, Jac. I. L \^ we are given a 
view of the rise of another branch of the Lamberts of Banstead which may be 
set beside Mr. Round's story of the rise of what we may consider as the main 
line of a family, probably a numerous one in the parish and neighbourhood. 
On 12 November 1622 is filed the bill of complaint of John Lamberte, an 
infant of 16 years of age, who is represented by Thomas Laycocke, gent., the 
second husband of his mother Jane. The defendants, whose answers are dated 
23 January and 6 February i62f, are the complainant's uncles Andrew and 
Roger Lambert. In the complainant's bill is set forth the story of his family. 
Andrew Lambert, his grandfather, was a yeoman living in Banstede, a copy- 
holder of Sir Nicholas Carew's manor there, and in 14 Elizabeth the said 
Andrew surrendered his copyhold to the use of himself and his wife Mary for 
life, with remainder to his heirs for ever. Andrew Lambert had issue by Mary 
his wife five sons — Edward, John, Francis, Andrew and Roger. Of these sons 
John goes to London and betters himself, becoming an officer of the king's 
payhouse, and by reason of such service entitled to write himself * gentleman,' 
a title which is applied to none other of his family. The said Andrew is de- 
scribed as * takinge greate comforte in the hoapefull and honeste course of John 
his second sonne, who was marryed and had yssue (the complainant) in the 
life tyme of his father Andrewe, and had attayned twoe good places of office 
and service in his majesties howse and lived in good credit and reputation and 
did manye tymes supplye the wants and necessityes of his aged father and was 
a greate staye and comforte unto him in his olde and decayinge tymes.' Out 
of this regard of old Andrew for his son John, the hopeful Joseph of the family, 
springs the suit in Chancery, for Andrew is said to have surrendered copyhold 
land to the intent that John should have the reversions after his parents' death. 
John Lambert died in May 16 18, his relict and son protesting that they were 
then left in poor estate and without any means, and Roger the youngest son of 
Andrew, whom his brother John had advanced as an apprentice, is recognized 
by the steward of the manor as the copyhold heir of his father Andrew. 

gives to his younger son Roger. 

O. B. 




When the artless Doctor sees 
No one hope, but of his fees. 
And his skill runs on the lees. 
Sweet Spirit, comfort me ! 


AMONG the families that emerge during the period of the 
Heralds' Visitations is one named NicoUs, in Northamp- 
tonshire and Leicestershire. Of their origin nothing is known. 
In the pedigrees the first ancestor assigned to them is a vague 
^ NicoUs del North/ temp. Edward IV. , who settled at Ecton 
in Northamptonshire. Far away in the Severn valley about 
that time the last Lord Lovel conveyed to a retainer of his, a 
man named Wright from Yorkshire, a small property, which 
passed, with Wright's daughter, to another NicoUs ; and their 
descendants several generations later convinced Dugdale, at his 
visitation of Shropshire, that they were of the same stock. 

William Nicolls, the actual founder of the family in the 
shires, died in 1576, and was buried at Hardwick near Wel- 
lingborough, at the age, it is said, of ninety-six. There is 
reason to believe that this is an exaggeration ; but in any case he 
did not live long under Edward IV. His will was proved at 
Peterborough by his grandsons. An inquisition shows that he 
had interests in the manor and advowson of Clay Coton, one- 
third of Hardwick, the manor of Ecton, and property in 
Stanwick, Clipston and Newbold. 

Thomas Nicolls his son died eight years earlier, aged 
thirty-seven. He was a reader of the Middle Temple, and 
resided at the rectory house of Pytchley. He was jointly 
interested with his father in most of the properties above 
mentioned, and held besides the advowson of Haughton 
Magna, a lease of the other share of Hardwick, property at 
Lilbourne, and a moiety of the manor of Dewlish, with other 
property in Dorset, as his will shows. His wife Anne, 
daughter of Thomas (not John) Pell, married secondly 
Richard Purefey of Faxton. Thomas Nicolls left four sons 
and three daughters. Francis, the eldest, was of Hardwick, 


and is said to have been governor of Tilbury Fort in 1588, 
when Queen Elizabeth reviewed the troops assembled to repel 
the Spanish invasion. To the three silver pheons of the 
visitation coat he added a quarter or canton — ^which has been 
strangely represented as an honourable augmentation. His 
only son was created a baronet in 1641 ; but upon the death 
of the third holder in 1717 the baronetcy became extinct. 

Sir Augustine, second son of Thomas NicoUs, was a judge 
of the common pleas, and died while on circuit at Kendal in 
1 6 1 6, at the age of fifty-seven, under circumstances detailed in 
Sir James Whitelocke's Liber Famelicus, He married a 
widow, and having no children of his own, left his seat of 
Faxton to his nephew the baronet. Lewis NicoUs, the third 
brother, made a will early in 1586, ^ being bound for Barbary 
in the affairs of his master, Mr. Richard Gore,' proved in Nov- 
ember 1592, when the judge benefited to the extent of 1,000 
or so. The three sisters were Susan wife of Robert Manley of 
Sprotton, Anne wife of Edward Heselrigge of Thedding- 
worth, and Margery wife of Michael Purefoy of Drayton or 

William Nicolls esquire, the youngest son of Thomas, 
married Joyce daughter of George GifFard of Bottlebridge, 
by whom he had several children. Under the will of his 
brother the judge he took two-thirds of the manor of Hal- 
stead, and of the parsonage of Til ton, with lands also in 
Whatborough and South Marefield, in tail male, and fixed his 
residence at Halstead. In 1621, when upwards of fifty, he 
was suffering from a painful fistula, and came up to London 
for treatment and relief. The surgeon he consulted was one 
Thomas Gillam, or Gilliam, ' a professor lawfullie authorised 
in surgery,' as he describes himself; and one result of the 
journey was a Chancery suit, the pleadings in which supply 
the particulars that follow. As often happens, they throw an 
interesting side light upon the domestic life of the time ; but 
readers should remember that each party is no doubt making 
the most of his case. 

In the first place we find the patient striking a curious 
bargain with his medical man, who undertook to treat the case 
for £,S^i patient stayed in London ; but if he went down 

to the country, ' forasmuch as he should loose his practise,' 
stipulated for ^100^ namely ;^20 in hand and ;^8o when the 
cure was perfected. The surgeon adds that he was to be 



allowed all charges of travel there and back, being seventy-five 
miles from London ; but that point the patient omits. The 
parties agreed upon these terms. Gillam received £^ los, 
down, and the balance of the £20 on arrival at Halstead about 
the end of August ; and subsequently drew another ^^50 on 
account. But the patient, being dissatisfied with the result, 
sues for the return of his money ; while the defendant claims 
to be entitled to ;^30 more, with £12 for his travelling ex- 
penses, and estimates the practice lost in consequence of his 
absence at £2^0. 

The plaintifF s bill tells, as usual, a piteous tale. First he 
complains that his medical attendant ' grewe negligent, spend- 
inge a great parte of his tyme in Innes and Alehowses, and in 
needles ioyneying abroad.' Not content with that, after he 
had brought his patient ' to that state that he was not able to 
stirre of of his bedd, presumeing that plaintifF, knowinge his life 
to be in Danger, would sooner parte with anie money then 
parte with him,' he pretended urgent business in town. ' He 
had left his wife to receive severall summes in London, and 
she had writt word that she could receive none, and he must 
needs goe ' to see about it himself. ' Uppon notice whereof, 
plaintifF beinge much displeased, he sayd, yf plaintifF would 
lett him have ^^50, He would not leave plaintifF, noe not for 
£SOO^ untill he was willinge.' So the £^0 was handed over ; 
but so far from keeping his word, this heartless creature ^ one 
fortnight after pretended that he had received other letters, 
and soe left, and came to London, onely protestinge that he 
would come againe within 10 dayes, which he did not, but 
came within 16 daies.' This sounds bad; but the plaintifF 
forgets (as plaintiffs do) to mention that meanwhile he was left 
in charge of one Mr. Napkin, ' a very able surgeon,' with 
directions for his treatment ; and that Gillam paid this sub- 
stitute £1^ out of his own pocket. 

Perhaps all this friction and worry was not very good for 
the fistula. At any rate Mr. NicoUs was brought ' to that 
state that in 1 6 dayes he did never eat one bitt of bread nor of 
meate, nor dranke one draught of beare,' and puts it all down 
to ' such thinges as he gave ' him. We should like to know 
what his diet consisted of during the interval. Finally 'on 
the seaventeth day ' Gillam ' most barberously left and went to 
London,' not without a parting interview. ' Att what tyme 
plaintifF asking whether he had tryed the uttermost height of 


his skill, he acknowledged that he had, and doubted not that 
that he had done, and the direction he had lefte, would perfect 
the cure ' ; and when ' plaintiff asked, yf that fayled, what 
satisfaccion he should have for the ^^70, he answered, he would 
referr himselfe to plaintiff.' 

Needless to say Gillam, in his answer, puts a very different 
complexion upon the case. According to him, he ' found the 
disease to be dangerous, and a very doubtful and hard Cure.' 
He treated it * with much diligence in three moneths, during 
which he was for one moneth with plaintiff ' ; then ' having very 
necessary affayres, and the Consent of plaintiff,' left him for a 
fortnight in charge of Mr. Napkin, and came to London ; ' and 
afterwards Continued with him about 4 monethes more, and did 
much benefitt ' the complainant. Very full details of the 
treatment are added, not exactly suited perhaps for the general 
reader, though they might prove of considerable interest to 
the faculty. 

The charge of neglect and misbehaviour is of course indig- 
nantly denied. Defendant explains that, * after he had Care- 
fuUie dressed plaintiff, the season being very Cold, and there 
being but one fyer in one Chimney Chamber, and little fyer in 
the plaintifF s howse but the kitchin,' he ' went abroad for his 
recreation and healthes sake.' That the patient was reduced 
to a very weak state is admitted. But he ' never gave unto 
plaintiff anie other receiptes then was thought fitting, and was 
necessarie ; by reason of which gyven and applied, plaintifF 
Could not but grow very weake, neyther Could plaintiff receave 
anie perfect Cure without.' 

It is singular that the parting is alleged by the plaintiff to 
have taken place upon the seventieth day, and the sum re- 
ceived was £'-]o ; while Mr. Napkin was paid for a period 
variously stated as fourteen or sixteen days. Defendant how- 
ever puts the period of his attendance at seven months in all, 
not counting his fortnight's absence. 

If a dispute about money matters was really the occasion 
of his final departure, neither party thinks fit to mention the 
fact. Defendant's story is that ' divers urgent matters gave 
occasion of necessity ' for his return to London ; and that 
again he had the plaintiff's consent. He adds that within the 
fortnight he ' sent one of his servantes, whom defendant knew 
to be very sufficient, and did gyve him directions what to doe. 
But plaintiff, finding himself much eased, refused to deale anie 



further touching the Cure, saying he would have nothing more 
donne untill he Came to London. Whereof Defendant was 
very gladd to heare ; and did by letter signifie soe much, and 
requested him to lie at Defendant's howse without anie Charge. 
. . . And since Complainant is Come to London, he hath sent 
intreating him, if he were not perfectly Cured, that he might 
perfect the same. For he latelie Cured one which was afflicte 
with the like disease, and tooke noe other Course. But Com- 
plainant refused, and in steed of thanckes hath in great furie, 
in fowle and very uncivill speeches, much abused Defendant, 
and indevoured to doe Defendant more preiudice than the 
money Cann requite.' 

In spite of the benefit derived from Gillam's treatment, 
"William Nicolls did not live much longer, but died in Septem- 
ber 1625. His widow married again, and lived to make a 
will in 1 66 1, which was not proved until 1666. Her second 
husband was Roger Burgoyne esquire, of Wroxall and 
Honiley in Warwickshire, and of Sutton in Bedfordshire, who 
died in 1636 ; but had no children by him. He was a 
widower, and father of Sir John Burgoyne baronet. Augus- 
tine Nicolls, the eldest son of William and Joyce, died in 
1639, leaving an only daughter, Elizabeth, who married 
Thomas Hackett of North Crawley, Bucks. She was repre- 
sented by the Carews of Beddington. Their younger 
surviving sons were William and Francis, of whom the former 
married and had issue. They also had five daughters : Mary 
married Andrew Halford esquire ; Anne was wife of William 
Brooke, or Brookes, of Haselor ; Frances died young ; Eliza- 
beth seems to have had two husbands named Orton and 
Goldsmith ; and Jane was wife of Humphrey Parrott esquire. 

W. H. B. BIRD. 

Phoio by li 'alker &■ Cockerel. 

Sir John Doddridge. 

( From his poytrait in the Xatioital Portrait Gallery.) 



Sir John Doddridge 

IN 1884 the Society of Antiquaries acquired by purchase 
the portrait of Sir John Doderidge or Doddridge. Ade- 
quate reasons for this purchase were given by the Earl of 
Carnarvon in his speech from the chair in that year, when he 
referred to the foundation of the Society. He stated, on no 
less an authority than Spelman, that in 1589 its members 
resolved to apply for a Charter of Incorporation, and for some 
sort of public building where they might meet and have a 
library. A petition for this purpose is among the Cotton 
MSS. in the British Museum, and it is signed by Sir Robert 
Cotton, Sir John Doddridge and Sir James Lee. The case 
thus stated was sufficiently plausible to justify the Council in 
availing themselves of the opportunity of buying the portrait 
of one of the signatories, Sir John Doddridge. In any event, 
they had added to their collection the presentment of one 
who, to quote the noble lord in full, ^as author of works 
on the Earldom of Chester, Duchy of Cornwall and Princi- 
pality of Wales, helped to further and foster those studies 
and pursuits for the promotion of which this Society was 

Sir John Doddridge was born in 1555, educated at Exeter 
College, Oxford, graduating in 1576-7, and entering the 
Middle Temple at the same time. He was at different periods 
Prince Henry's Serjeant, Solicitor-General, Member of Par- 
liament for Horsham, Sussex, and Justice of the King's 
Bench from 1612--28. He was knighted in 1607, and was 
married three times, but left no issue. 

His character, to judge both from his portrait and con- 
temporary remarks, must have been remarkable. Bacon writes 
with reference to the Peacham case that Doddridge ' was very 
ready to give an opinion in secret,' while, when the great 
writer heard him plead at the Bar, he is said to have remarked : 
' It is done like a good archer, he shoots a fair compass.' 
Fuller observes that 'he held the scales of justice with so 




steady a hand that neither love nor lucre, fear nor flattery, 
could bow him to either side,' praise hardly borne out by his 
notorious conduct in the commendam case, or in the famous 
case of the five knights, where he is supposed to have said, 
' The king holds of none but God.* Indeed, subserviency to 
the king was a dominant characteristic, and truly, there is 
something in his face which gives the lie to Fuller's praise. 

From a habit of shutting his eyes while listening intently 
to a case, he acquired the sobriquet of ' The Sleeping Judge.' 

He was the author of a number of works published after 
his death, of which the chief ones are mentioned in Lord 
Carnarvon's speech above. 

Two portraits of Sir John Doddridge are here reproduced. 
One is surrounded by a painted oval, and is consequently the 
larger (2 ft. 5 J in. by 2 ft.), though the scale is the same. This 
portrait is also more vigorous and vivid in the painting. One 
sees a man of great intellectual power, strength, and perhaps 
some brutality. The same man is seen in the other picture ; 
yet how different are his qualities in degree. His is a 
smoother, less incisive personality ; even his garments are less 
shapely and brilliant. This, we take it, is the fault of the 
artist, who was evidently a copyist of an inferior kind. The 
copy (or what we consider to be the copy) is owned by the 
Society of Antiquaries, while the original belongs to the 
nation. The copy is reproduced in colours. The artists of 
both are unknown.-^ 

^ His name has been very prominently mentioned in the House of Lords, 
this very year, before the Committee for Privileges. The Great Chamberlain- 
ship of England was again in dispute before the House as it was in 1626, when 
the judges were called in to give their opinions. On that occasion the Lord 
Chief Justice and the Lord Chief Baron held that this great office could pass 
by a private entail, and that it therefore belonged to De Vere Earl of Oxford ; 
but * Mr. Justice Doddridge,' with two of his fellows, held that it could not 
be entailed away from the heir-general, being akin in character to an earldom 
held under a charter. Doddridge's view therefore prevailed, and his judgment 
on that occasion, which is abstracted in Collins' precedents, was deemed of so 
much importance in the recent proceedings that Mr. Cripps, K.C., on behalf 
of the Duke of Athol, read it out in full to the Committee. The counsel for 
the Crown also held Doddridge's reasoning to be sound, though, like other 
judges, he was misinformed as to the facts. — J. H. R. 



Richard III. (No. XX) 

To the reader of letters and memoirs this portrait of 
Richard III. is well known. It has been engraved several 
times : once by the Reverend Thomas Kerrich (who be- 
queathed it to the Society) for vol. v. of the Paston Letters, 
Another engraving has been given by Sir Henry Ellis in vol. 
ii. of the third series of his Original Letters^ and a third one, 
by B. H0II5 forms the frontispiece to Jesse's Memoirs of King 
Richard III, It is more than worthy of being reproduced 
here once again, for it is undoubtedly an extremely fine piece 
of characterization. The king seems to be looking earnestly 
forward, while playing with the ring on his finger. His eyes 
are pale grey, and the expression of his countenance is tense ; 
his lips are compressed and very thin. Though young the 
face is bony, and the chin is not so crooked as is usual in his 
portraits. The general colouring is somewhat brown ; there is 
gilding on the chain and cloak. The whole has been carefully 
drawn, and is painted on a panel \i\ inches by 8 inches, with 
an arched top. On the frame, which corresponds to the 
one for the Society's portrait of Edward IV., is inscribed : 

King Richard III. 




Charles, Comte de Flandre (No. XLI) 

This beautiful picture, sometimes wrongly entitled ' Charles 
the Bold of Burgundy when a Child,' is one of the finest in 
the collection of the Society of Antiquaries. It is an excellent 
French painting, somewhat in the style of Janet ; the drawing 
is strong and clean, and the colouring is a most delicate har- 
mony of silvery grey, brown and white. The expression of 
the eyes and the curious short chin characteristic of babyhood, 
are given with lifelike accuracy, as any one who has studied 
the proportions of a child's face will discover. The face is not 
unlike that of Francois II. when young ; the hypothesis that 
it represents Charles of Burgundy is at once contradicted by 
the dress, which is obviously of later date. It is exquisitely 
painted ; the fine black rings with which the white ground is 
patterned, the transparent muslin apron, the cap, the silver 
rattle, and, above all, the bird and the little fat hand that holds 
it, combine to make it a masterpiece of that style of por- 

It is painted on a panel of 11,2 inches by inches. On 
the back is pasted a large sheet of paper, with the evidently 
erroneous account of the picture in partly obliterated French, 
The names of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, Isabell 
of Portugal, are interspersed. In another place is written 
' Antonij Amarossin,' and in another, 'No. 393. John Thane, 
Rupert St. 1744/ 

Charles, Comte de Flandre. 



It would be a great gain and pleasure to the members of 
the Society of Antiquaries if a name could with solid historical 
reason be affixed to the little circular picture here reproduced. 
Perhaps some reader of The Ancestor may recognize and prove 
it to be the scion of some weU-known ancient house. There 

is happily no doubt about the date of it, ^Anno being 

writ large on the background. On the other side is 
^ETA' SUE 45, and round the frame is a Latin distich. It 
represents a man with a fine reddish beard and markedly 
aristocratic features, wearing a close-fitting black dress 
curiously guarded with silver lace, and jewelled ring hanging 
by a black ribbon round his neck. The expression of the 
face is strong yet gentle, and very thoughtful. It is painted 
in miniature style, and the diameter is 6§ inches. 


Unknown Portrait. 



Carpenter v. Tomkins 

Q,\ Bill (2 June 1632) of Joan Carpenter of Brierley in the parish of 
Limster, co. Hereford, widow. 

Answer and demurrer (28 Sep. 1632) of Thomas Tomkins and Henry 
Tomkins, his son and heir apparent. 

Concerning a sum of 100/. which by the bill is alleged to have been 
entrusted by John Tomkins, since deceased, the father of the compt., 
to the defendant Thomas Tomkins his son. The defendants say that 
the said Joan rekased all claims upon them by a quittance dated 26 
May 8 Car. I., and that the suit is begun without her consent by her 
son Richard Carpenter, ' a very turbulente and contentious person.* 

Canner and others v. Bissell 

Q\ Bill (5 July 1 641) of John Canner of Tewkesbury, co. Glouc, 
hosier, and Anne his wife, Richard Cave of Worcester, mercer, and Alice his 
wife, and Richard Jones. 

Answers (13 July 1641) of John Bissell and (6 Oct. 1641) of the said 
John Bissell joining with Anne his wife. 

Concerning the estate of Edward Moore of Worcester, draper, who 
made a will 13 Dec. 1628, whereof Eleanor his relict renounced 
execution. The compt. Richard Cave obtained letters of administra- 
tion in the Consistory Court at Worcester. Anne the defendant is 
daughter of William Gibbs of Worcester, gent., by Eleanor his wife, 
daughter of the said Edward Moore. The said Canner and Cave are 
brothers-in-law and their wives were two of the residuary legatees of 
the said Edward [and probably his daughters]. 

Cary and another v. Russell and others 

C-|- Bill (29 Nov. 1 641) of John Cary of Marybone Park, co. Middlesex, 
esquire, and John Williams of the Inner Temple, London, esquire. 

Answer (25 Nov. 1641) of Boys Ower of Minster, fellmonger, and 
Henry Huffam of Preston near Wingham, yeoman (defendants with John 
Russell of St. Peters in Thanet, yeoman). 

Concerning leases in the manor of Minster in Thanet, co. Kent, 
whereof the complainants are seised. 




Cox r'. Sandys and others 

C\ Bill (14 July 1 641) of Charles Cockes of the Middle Temple, London, 

Answer (14 Aug. 1641) of William Sandys of Flatburie, co. Worcester, 
esquire, and (4 Aug. 1641) of William Steede, LL.D. (defendants with 
William Say, esquire). 

Concerning the manor of Atchlench, co. Worcester, leased 24 March 
I & 2 Philip and Mary by the Dean and Chapter of Wells to Sir 
John Bourne, knight, for 99 years, which lease is now come to the 


C-1- Bill (18 June 1632) of Robert Cudmoore, of , co. Devon, 

bailiff of the hundred of Black Torrington. 

Answer (i Sep. 1632) of James Nott. 

Alleged misconduct of the defendant's son John Nott, now deceased, 
when in the service of the complainant. 

Cooke v. Tracy 

Ci Bill (19 June 1632) of William Cooke of Corse, co. Glouc, yeoman. 
Answer (5 Oct. 1632) of Sir Robert Tracy, knight, for himself and for 
Merriall Tracy his daughter (an infant under the age of nine years). 

Concerning a statute or recognizance of 1000/. acknowledged by the 
complainant to one Nicholas Tracy of Tewkesbury, esquire, and dated 
3 June 20 Jac. I. Nicholas Tracy is dead and since his death his 
executor Thomas Tracy alias Thorne is dead also, whose executrix is 
the defendant Merriall Tracy. William Cooke of Eldersfield and 
Richard Cooke were sureties for the complainant, whose wife and 
children are spoken of. Thomas Thorne left a mother Elizabeth 

Clarke zf. Godfrey 

Ci Bill (15 May 1632) of Francis Clarke the elder of New Sarum, co. 
Wilts, woollen draper, and Sara his wife, one of the daughters of Richard 
Godfrey late of New Sarum, fishmonger, deceased, for themselves and for 
Francis, Thomas and Richard their sons, and for Sara, Katharine and Mary 
their daughters, being infants within age. 

Answer (8 Sep. 1632) of Anne Godfrey of New Sarum, widow, relict and 
extrix. of Richard Godfrey. 

Concerning sums of money which Richard Godfrey paid to the com- 
plainant Francis for his advancement in his trade. The defendant 


pleads that the complainants stand excommunicated and are convicted 
as popish recusants. A certificate of the sub-dean of Sarum is attached 
certifying to that effect. Richard Godfrey left two daughters at his 
death, whereof the complainant Sara is the elder. The defendant is 
her stepmother. 

Chamberlayn v. Pike 

Further answer (10 April 1630) of Richard Pike, defendant, to the 
will of Elizabeth Chamberlayn, a widow. 

Concerning the debts of the defendant's late husband. 

CouLEs V. Blackstock 

C-i- Bill (23 Oct. 1632) of Thomas Coules of London, mercer. 

Answers (3 Nov. 1632) of William Geery of Grays Inn, esquire, (6 Nov. 
1632) of Zachary Blackstock of St. Leonard's in Shorditch, gent., and (5 Nov. 
1632) of William Page of the Pipe Office, gent. 

Concerning a mortgage of lands in Crixton, co. Somerset. 

Carsewell v. Applebee and others 

Cy^^ Bill (29 June 1641) of John Carsewell of Shiffnall, co. Salop, gent. 

Answer (28 Sep. 1641) of John Applebee and Jane his wife and Thomas 

Concerning the estate of Richard Amyes or Amies, deceased, father of 
the defendant Jane. 

Thomas Amyes the grandfather 
and guardian of the children of 
Richard Amyes = 

Thomas Feassey 
of Priors Lee, 
uncle to Richard, 
Mary and Jane 


= Richard Amyes = Mary Carsewell: 

of Prior's Lee, 
CO. Salop, died 
intestate about 
22 years since 




years since 

: William Catton 
of Prior's Lee, 
gent., married 
about 15 years 

John Carsewell 
of Shiffnall, 
gent., the 

4 years smce 

Richard Mary 
Am yes Amyes 
an idiot 

Jane Amyes 
wife of John 

John Amyes a posthumous 
son of Richard Amyes. 
Died of the falling sickness 
within a year of his mo- 
ther's death 


Cage v. Cage 

C-j^ Bill (22 Nov. 1 641) of Robert Cage of Hornemead, co. Hertford, 

Answer (23 Nov. 1641) of Philip Cage, father of the complainant. 

Concerning the lands in Norfolk which Elizabeth mother of the com- 
plainant had from Robert Thorneton her father. 

X Robert Thorneton Daniel Cage 

I. I u. 

Elizabeth Thorneton= Philip Cage= Alice Wood 

A settlement after this 
marriage was made by 
her husband and his 
father of the manor of 
Robert Cage the Hornemeade 
compt. son and 

Clench f. Bogas 

Cj^ Bill (20 June 1632) of Almott Clench, esquire. 

Answer at Tivetshall, co. Norfolk (4. Oct. 1632) of Anne Bogas, widow, 
and Robert Bogas, gent, (defendants with John Bogas, gent.). 

Concerning the manor of Braham alias Brantham, co. Suffolk, which, 
as the complainant alleges, was conveyed by fine and by indenture 
dated 1 5 Nov. 1 2 Jac. I. by Robert Bogas, esquire, now deceased, to 
John Clench, esquire, the complainant's late father, who died about 
four years since. 

Robert Bogas esq. long since dead, who 
was seised of the manor of Braham. 
His widow Anne survived him and 
married one Downes, whom also she 

Robert Bogas esq.=Anne John Bogas, gent 

son and heir, died relict 
about a year since 


jert Bogas, gent. 



Bill (16 June 1632) of Robert CoUyn of , co. Devon, 


Answer ( 1632) of Robert Rolle of Heanton, esq., and Sir Samuel 

RoUe, knight (defendants with Robert Kendall). 

Concerning a messuage called Nether Brandon with lands in Liskeard, 
CO. Cornwall, of which Robert Collins, the compt.'s grandfather, is said 
to have been seised in fee. 

Chapman v. Froggatt 

C^ Bill (28 June 1641) of Humfrey Chapman of Baslow in Bakewell, 
CO. Derby, yeoman, son and heir of Godfrey Chapman of Baslow, deceased. 

Answer (4 Oct. 1641) of Thomas Froggatt of Calver, co. Derby, yeoman 
(defendant with Anne Chapman, mother of the complainant). 
Concerning a loan of 50/. to the complainant's father. 

CouRTHOPE and another v. Smith 

C-^ Bill (12 July 1 641) of Peter Courthope and Walter Burrell, esquires, 
exors. of Timothy Wyat, widow, who was extrix. of Francis Wyat, gent., her 
late husband, late of Redsall in Puttenham, co. Surrey. 

Answer (23 Oct. 1641) of Anthony Smith of Whitley, co. Surrey, gent. 
Concerning a lease from the defendant to the said Francis Wyat, 
dated in April 10 Car. I., of a forge and iron work in Whitley and 
Thursley, co. Surrey. The said Francis died in the following 

Cooke v. Slade 

Cj^g- Bill (19 June 1632) of Abraham Cooke of Shepton, co. Somerset, 

Answer (5 Oct. 1 63 2) of Henry Slade of Ham, co. Somerset, yeoman, 
son and exor. of John Slade of the same, yeoman, deceased. 

Concerning copyholds in Pulton and Shepton Mallett, co. Somerset. 
Henry Slade married Mary Cooke, the compt.'s daughter, with a 
portion of 200/. The said Henry Slade hath since, as the compt. 
alleges, brought his wife to strange distempers of mind by his unkind 
usage and his unnatural and unbeseeming carriage, and has left her 
unprovided with food or raiment. John Slade died 7 years since, 
leaving Katharine his widow, Mary his first wife being dead 30 years 
since. The defendant says that he became a suitor to the said Mary 
about 1 1 years since by motion of Thomas Cornishe, brother-in-law to 
the compt., and says that it was concealed from him that the said 
Mary was troubled before her marriage with the falling sickness, and 
he denies ill usage, but says that before her marriage the said Mary 
was ill used by the compt.'s wife, her stepmother. The defendant has 
issue by the said Mary two children — John and Mary Slade. 



Chamberlayne zf. Newdegate 

Bill (30 Nov. 1632) of Richard Chamberlayne of Temple House, 

CO. Warwick, esquire, and Hugh Audleye, esquire. 

Answers ( ) of John Newdegate, esquire, and ( ) Robert 

Newdegate his brother. 

Concerning a settlement of the manor of GrifFe and Coton, co. War- 
wick, made by John GifFard of Chillington, co. Stafford, esquire, lately 
deceased, by deed indented dated — [3] October 21 Eliza, made be- 
tween (i.) the said John GifFard and (ii.) Joan Bradshaw of Noke, co. 
Oxford, widow, and Benedict Winchcombe of Noke, gent., and (iii.) 
Sir Walter Aston of Tixall, co. Stafford, knight, John Talbott of 
Grafton, co. Worcester, esq., Edward and Humfrey GifFard, gentlemen, 
and William Hill, yeoman, in consideration of a marriage afterwards 
solemnized between Walter GifFard, son and heir apparent of the said 
John GifFard, and Philippe White, one of the daughters and heirs of 
Henry White, esquire, then deceased, whereby the said manor was 
settled to the use of the said John and Joyce his then wife for their 
lives, with remr. to their heirs male, and further remr. to the heirs 
male of Sir Thomas GifFard, father of the said John, efc. The said 
John GifFard and Joyce died about August 1 1 Jac. I. Peter GifFard, 
son and heir of Walter, with Frances his wife, were parties to a fine 
in Easter term last, of the manors of GrifFe and Coton and Chilvers- 
coton, ^-Z^-., quitclaimed the same to the complainants. 

Cockayne and another e'. Howard 

Cj^ Bill (27 Jan. 1 63 J) of Charles Cockayne of Ruston, co. Northants, 
son and heir of Sir William Cockayne of London, deceased, and William 
Bossvill of Hanginge Grimstone, co. York, gent., tenant of the said Charles. 

Answer (22 Oct. 1632) of the Lord William Howard and the Lady 
Elizabeth his wife. 

Concerning a moiety of the manor of Hanging Grimston, whereof the 
compt. Charles is seised, and the customs of the manor. 

Carpenter zf. Tyther 

Bill (13 Feb. 162I) of Robert Carpenter of Hartbury in the 
county of the city of Gloucester, gent., and John Carpenter of Norton, co. 
Glouc, yeoman. 

Answer (5 June 1639) of Edward Tyther of Gloucester, gent., and Anne 
his wife, who was relict and extrix. of John Rogers, gent., whose will is dated 
I o Aug. 1 1 Car. L 

Concerning the will of John Rogers, deceased, and his legacy to John 
Rogers his son by the defendant Anne, who made the compt. parties 
to a trust by her indenture dated 23 Jan. 12 Car. L before her re- 
marriage. Arnold Rogers, a son of John Rogers, is named as being 
dead at the time of that indenture. 



C-^ Bill (15 July 1 641) of John Coveney of Hastingleigh, co. Kent, 

Answer ( ) of Benjamin Mountney of London, and Mary 

his wife. 

Concerning a lease made 27 July 9 Car. I. to the compt. by the 
defendant Mary, then Mary Eastday of Canterbury, widow, of a 
messuage stand in St. Mary's parish in Romney Marsh. 

Cole v. Madocke 

C^ Bill (16 July 1 641) of Richard Cole of Aveton GifFord, co. Devon, 

Answer (18 Oct. 1641) of Henry Madocke of Brent (defendant with 
Thomas and Richard Madocke of Brent, co. Devon). 

The defendant Henry was surety for the other defendants in the 
matter of a debt of 50/. The said Thomas and Richard were sons of 
another Richard Madocke, and the wife of Richard the younger is 
spoken of. The defendant Henry says that of the defendants Thomas 
has forsaken his country and is insolvent and Richard lives six and 
twenty miles away and is little worth and hardly to be found. 

Caldicott v. Blake and others 

C-^ Answer (i May 1930) of Sir William Blake, knight, William Rolfe 
and George Lowe, esquires, Richard Gurnard v. Henry Jackson, defendants to 
the bill of Matthias Caldicott, esquire. 

Concerning the will of Henry Smith of London, esquire, deceased, 
whereof the defendants are executors. 

Clarke v. Fitton 

C-/^ Bill (26 Nov. 1629) of Raphe Clarke of Chesterfield, co. Derby, 

Answer (9 April 1630) of Benjamin Fitton, gent, and Margaret his wife, 
of Marston, co. Line. 

Concerning the sale by the defendants to the compt. about 9 years 
since of their moiety of a messuage in Holliewell Gate in Chesterfield 
and of their fifth part of a messuage in Tibshelfe, co. Derby, with a 
warranty against themselves and Thomas Watson, brother of said 

Chave v. Chave 

CJ^ Bill (24 Nov. 1629) of Joan Chave of Uplowman, co. Devon, 
widow, relict of Philip Chave of Uplowman, husbandman, deceased. 

Answer (26 Nov. 1629) of William Chave, son of the said Philip Chave. 
Concerning a messuage and lands in Uplowman called Beare, which 



the said Philip by deed indented I o Jan. 1 2 Jac. I. demised to the 
defendant William and his wife Susan for their lives. The said Philip 
made his will about six years since giving legacies to his eight other 
children. Agnes, daughter of the compt., was residuary legatee with 
her mother. 

Clowes v. Brooke 
Bill (26 Nov. 1 631) of Thomas Clowes, citizen and sadler of 


Answer (6 Dec. 1631) of Roger Brooke. 

Concerning trade matters. The complainant for the space of twenty 
years hath used the trade of a milliner in the Royal Exchange, and 
the defendant is a workman that maketh cabinets, cases and other 
things which belong to the complainant's trade. 

Collins v. Berkeley and others 

Cgig- Bill (20 June 163 1) of Hugh Collins, clerk, rector of Compton 
Pancefoote, co. Somerset, and Margaret his wife, relict and extrix. of William 
Rosewell of Yardington, deceased. 

Answers (29 Sep. 163 1) of Sir Henry Berkeley, knight, Thomas Brooke 
and John Redwood (defendants with Dame Anne, wife of Sir Henry, James 
Morren, Edward Davies). In the bill Redwood is called Rideout, and is 
described as exor. of Gabriel Pinder. 

Concerning the estate of William Rosewell deceased. The 
Margaret described herself as * aged and of a good disposition easie to 
be wrought uppon.* She was sister to Tristian Sadburye who demised 
to her an estate in certain messuages and lands in the manor of Fox- 
combe and Galhampton, co. Somerset. William Sudborough was to 
enjoy a messuage and lands in Galhampton for life. 

Cranley v. Cole and others 

C^ Bill (8 Nov. 1 631) of Thomas Cranley of Oxenborne, co. South- 
ampton, gent. 

Plea and demurrer ( ) of Francis Cole of London, merchant, 

and Robert Marston, gent., the defendants. 

Concerning money matters. The defendants plead that the compt. 
on Monday before the feast of St. Wolstan the Bishop was duly out- 
lawed at the suit of Robert Valence in a plea of debt. 


Clobery and others v. Manaton and others 


CgV Answer (2 June 1631) of Ambrose Manaton, esquire, defendant 
(with John Hanys and Edward Roberts) to the will of John Clobery, esquire, 
and Sibil Woode, widow. 

Concerning the estate of Henry Trecarrell, esq., long since deceased. 
Henry Trecarrell of Trecarrell, esquire 









dau. and co-heir 

dau. and co-heir 

dau. and co-heir 
died s.p. 

dau. and co-heir 

John Trelawny 

Arthur Kellye 
esquire, heir of 
Jane Trecarrell 

John Harrys 
heir of Katherine 

Sibil, dau. co-heir Elizabeth, dau. and 

(relict of John co-heir, deceased. 

Wood) CO - heir late wife of John 

with her sister of Clobery, esquire 

Loar Trecarrell = 

Christopher Clobery 



Bill (20 June 163 1) of Richard Coe. 

Answer (4 Oct, 1 631) of Anthony Burre. 

Concerning two pieces of meadow land in Bastwicke, co. Norfolk, 
which the compt. alleges were conveyed in 34 Eliz. by John Burre 
to Richard Coe, compt.'s grandfather. 

Richard Coe 

John Burre 

Henry Coe, son and heir=:Elizabeth=Anthony Burre 

made a will in Feb. 161^ 

died 2 



son and heir, 
the defendant 

Richard Coe the 


Chapman and another v. Chapman and others 

C-gV Bill (2 Feb. i6f|) of William Chapman and Richard Chapman, 
aldermen of Bath, and Richard Gay of Newton St. Loe, gent. 

Answers (6 Apr. 1630) of Joan Chapman of Bath, widow, and George 
Mompesson, gent., and Eleanor his wife. 

Concerning the estate of Walter Chapman of Bath, alderman, who 
died leaving a will dated 1624, whereof the compts. were exors. with 
one John lies of Beckington, since deceased. Joan the defendant is 
relict of the said Walter, and Eleanor the defendant is his daughter. 
The said Eleanor had legacies from Mrs. Rogers of Bristol, deceased, 
and Mrs. Licence of Bath, widow, deceased, who was her grand- 

Collier v. Collier and others 
C-^ Bill (i 5 May 1628) of William Collier of Pudletrenthid, co. Dorset, 


Answers (3 Oct. 1628) of Edward Collier of Minterne, gent., and his son 
Richard Collier (defendants with William and Richard Lockett). 

Concerning a debt of the defendant Edward who borrowed 200/. of 
William Lockett in Jan. 6 Jac. L The said Edward Collier is uncle 
and was guardian to the compt. who was nephew and next heir to 
Henry Collier, esq., who made a will about 6 years since. 

Christmas v. Strode 

C-3^^ Bill (29 April 1631) of Richard Christmas of Broadsidling, co. 
Dorset, gent. 

Answer (21 June 1631) of Sir Richard Strode of Chalmington in Catstock, 
CO. Dorset, knight. 

Concerning a judgment which the said Sir Richard obtained against 
the compt. in the Court of Common Pleas in Trinity term 2 1 Jac. L 

Callow v, Bradford 

C^ Bill (30 April 1629) of John Callow of Somerton, co. Somerset, 

Answer (6 June 1629) of William Bradford and John Bradford his son. 

Concerning a mortgage in Somerton made by compt. to Thomas 
Bradford of Somerton, now deceased. William Bradford of Loade, co. 
Somerset, yeoman, the defendant, is brother and next heir of the said 
Thomas Bradford, who died about 1 8 months since. The complainant's 
wife is mentioned. 


Chamberlayne and others v. Wills 

Cg^ Bill (9 Feb. 1 6|^) of Abraham Chamberlaine the younger, Thomas 
Marsham and Thomas Chamberlayne of London, merchants. 

Answer (10 Feb. i6f§) of William Wills. 

Concerning ships called the Benediction and the Anne sent from the 
port of London to trade upon the Guinea coast. 

Culpepper and another v. Presse and others 

C-^ Bill (7 May 1630) of Sir Thomas Culpepper of Fogington, co. 
Sussex, knight, and John Reade, citizen and carpenter of London. 

Answer (25 May 1630) of William Taylor, citizen and mercer of London, 
and John Burges (defendants with Henry Presse, gent.). 

Concerning a loan to the complainant Sir Thomas. 

Clopton v. Barnardiston 

C-^ Bill (24 June 1631) of Walter Clopton of Fordham, co. Cambridge, 

Answer (7 Oct. 163 1) of Dame Anne Barnardiston, widow. 

Concerning the manors of Kentwell and Monks Melford, in Long 
Melford, co. Suffolk, whereof Sir William Clopton, knight, died seised. 

Barnardiston = Ann 

the relict, the 

present defendant 


Sir William Clopton 



of Long Melford, 
knight, deceased = 

William Clopton 
son and heir, died 
s.p. soon after his 

of Fordham, esq. 
the compt. 

Sir Simonds D'Ewes=Anne Clopton 
knight heir of her 


CoppiN and another Coleman and others 

C^y- Bill (i I Nov. 1 631) of Robert Coppin, citizen and merchant taylor 
of London, and Henry Brayton of Bradfield, co. Berks, gent. 

Answer (11 Nov. 163 1) of Samuel Coleman of Brent Illeigh, co. Suffolk, 



gent, (defendant with Robert Rolfe of Nedginge, co. Suffolk, gent., and 
Elizabeth his wife and Joane Rolfe). 

Concerning a lease of the manor or late priory of Kersey, co. Suffolk. 
The defendant Joane is late wife of Robert Rolfe, esquire, father of 
the defendant Robert Rolfe. 

Carre v. Creake 

C-3V Bill (17 June 163 1) of Thomas Carre of Hopton, co. Suffolk, 
mason, and Elizabeth his wife. 

Answer (4 Oct. 163 1) of Henry Creake of Stratford, shoemaker. 

Concerning messuages and lands in Stratford, co. Suffolk, late of Robert 
Brett, deceased, grandfather of the compt. Elizabeth. 

Thomas Brett 

John Brett Robert Brett of Stratford, co. Suffolk: 

son and heir will dated i6 Feb. 1596: 

died s.p. 

heir of his brother | 


Thomas Brett 

1 1. 

Margaret Brett William Brett 




son andheir= 

eldest dau. and died s.p. 



extrix. She and 


her two sisters 

were all married 

before 23 Dec, 


Deth, dau. 

3 Jac- I- 

and heir, wife of 

Thomas Carre 

Clare v. Porte 

C^ Bill (23 May 163 1) of John, Earl of Clare. 

Answer (28 Sep. 1631) of Robert Porte of Ham, co. Stafford, esquire. 

Concerning freehold lands and copyholds of the manor of Yoxall, co. 
Stafford, of which Thomas Salt of Yoxall is said to have died seised. 
The defendant denies that he or Anne his wife are co-heirs of the said 
Thomas, as is alleged in the bill. The said Thomas by his will de- 
vised certain messuages and lands to Dorothy, now wife of Thomas 
Draper, gent., for life with remr. to the defendant. 

Thomas Salt Elizabeth Salt, wife Prudence Salt, 

of Yoxall of William Higges, wife of Booth, 

died about 9 sister and co-heir sister and co- 

or 10 years heir 


Calley V. Allen and others 

CJ^ Bill (3 June 163 1) of Sir William Calley of Burdroppe, co. Wilts, 
knight, and William Calley, Esq., his son and heir apparent. 

Answer (13 July 163 1) of Ralph Allen, brother and heir of William Allen, 
esq., a bachelor, deceased, who was son and heir of Sir William Allen, knight, 
a Lord Mayor of London, and (10 Oct. 1631) of William Hamond, brother 
of Edmund Hamond, 

Concerning the conveyance to the compts. of the moiety of the 
manor of Fiddington, co. Wilts, by the feoffees of Henry Long of 
Whaddon, co. Wilts, esq., father of Walter Longe, now of Whaddon. 

Corbet v. Johnson 

Q-^a Bill (10 May 1630) of Robert Corbet of Colchester, co. Essex, 

Answers (26 May 1630) of Thomas Johnson of Long Melford, co. Suffolk, 

Concerning trade matters. 


C^3 and Q-^^h Bill (26 June 1629) of William Cockett of London, 

Answer (10 April 1630) of Edward Neast, gent., defendant. 

Concerning the marriage portion which the compt. had with Frances 
his now wife, who is sister to the defendant and daughter of one John 
Neast, gent., dead about 3 years since, who was married to the compt. 
when this defendant was but a young man. The marriage was solem- 
nized about 1613 or 161 4. 

Cockett v, Webb 

C-^a Bill (26 Feb. i6|-^) of William Cockett * one of the gentleman 
ushers quarter waighters in ordinarie to our soveraigne lord King Charles.' 

Answer (10 Apr. 1630) of Anthony Webb of Tewkesbury, co. Glouc, 

Concerning a bond given about 1 2 years since by the compt. 's father- 
in-law, John Neast of Eldersfeild alias Elsfeild, co Wore, gent., now 
deceased, to the said defendant. The complainant once dwelt in 
Worcestershire and since hath dwelt in the city of London. Edward 
Neast, gent., is eldest son to the said John Neast, whose widow was 
his extrix. 





Replication of Henry Cogan, esquire, to the answer of Cordwell 
Hamond, defendant. 

Crowcher v. Wright 

C^- Answer (lo Feb. 1641-) of Henry Wright, defendant, to the bill of 
George Crowcher. 

Concerning a croft called Peartree Croft whereof Thomas Crowcher, 
the father of the complainant, was seised, who, by his deed of feoff- 
ment, 26 Jan. I Car. I., thereof enfeoffed Henry Wright, the late 
father of the defendant. The said Henry Wright the elder made 
the compt.'s mother Elizabeth, since deceased, an estate in the said 
ground for her life. 

CoLLYN V. Edmonds and others 

C-jig- Answer and demurrer (7 May 1646) of Henry Edmonds, one of 
the defendants to the bill of Matthew Collyn, compt. 

Answer (7 May 1 646) of William Essex, another defendant. 

Answer (13 June 1646) of Henry Edmonds. 

Concerning a conveyance of lands made by the defendant Henry 
Edmonds and his brother John Edmonds, now deceased. 

Croke v. Croke 

C^ Plea and demurrer (12 Feb. 164I-) of Mercy Croke, widow, de- 
fendant to the bill of Christopher Croke, John Croke, Mary Croke, Rebecca 
Croke and Ruth Croke, complainants. 

Concerning the child's portions of the complainants, who are sons and 
daughters of Roger Croke, who left Walter Croke his eldest son as his 
executor. The compts. are said by the defendant to be all infants, 
Christopher and John only excepted. 

Crooke v. Hill and others 

C^ Answer (11 Feb. 164-I) of John Hill, a defendant to the bill of 
Charles Crooke, D.D., complainant. 

Concerning tithes in the defendant's parish of Agmondesham, co. 

Clinton v. Kimpton 

C^ Replication ( ) of John Clinton and Anne his wife,^com- 

plainants, to the answers of Mary Kimpton and William Kimpton. 


Rejoinder ( ) of Mary Kimpton and William Kimpton. 

Concerning the recovery of the marriage portion of the compt. Anne, 
who was daughter of Robert Kimpton (a testator) by Mary the de- 
fendant, and sister of Edward Kimpton. 

CoTTESBROoKE V. Charnock and others 

Bill (26 Jan. 163I-) of Clement Cottesbrooke of London, turner^ 
son and heir of William Cottesbrooke late of Swynford, co. Leic, yeoman,, 
deceased, eldest brother of John Cottesbrooke late of Whitechapel, co. Mid- 
dlesex, also deceased. 

Answers (8 Feb. 163I-) of Mark Smyth and Anne his wife (defendants 
with Richard Charnock of Rowell, co. Northants, gent.). 

Concerning a bond dated 16 Dec. 1626 wherein the said John 
Cottesbrooke became bound together with the said Richard Charnock. 
as his surety for a debt, and other obligations of the said John 
Cottesbrooke. The defendant Anne, wife of Mark Smyth of Wap- 
ping, chandler, is relict of the said John Cottesbrooke, and was married 
to her present husband about seven years since. She proved her late 
husband's will as guardian of his daughter Sarah, the extrix., who was 
aged about 6 years, and who died soon afterwards. 

Clarke v. Clarke and another 

C^^^ Replication ( c. 1644) of Nicholas Clarke to the answers of 

Elizabeth Clarke, widow, and Robert Jennor, defendants. 

Concerning lands in Stutton, whereof the compt.'s father became 
estated by way of mortgage from one Mixter, of which he declared 
that his son John should have all his estate. The compt. speaks of 
the declarations of his said father made in 1628 with the intent to 
make his will. The compt. denies that the defendant Elizabeth had 
the care which she alleges that she had for the education of him and 
of his brothers, or that she kept them as her own children. 

Cracroft v. Goake and others 

Replication ( ) of Richard Cracroft, complainant, to 

the answers of Matthew Goake, William Gooday and William King, defen- 

Concerning the jointure lands of the late wife of the complainant,, 
who was mother of Richard Pepis. 

Cartrett v. Cooke and another 

Bill (15 June 1646) of William Cartrett of Westminster, co. Mid- 
dlesex, brewer. 

Answer (22 June 1646) of Peter Cooke (a near neighbour of the com- 
plainant). Sense his wife and Edward Bond. 

Concerning water supplied to the complainant for brewing. 



Gary v. Leigh and others 

C-^ Bill ( ... 1622) of John Gary, esquire, son and heir apparent of 
Sir Philip Gary of London, knight, by Sir Edward Barrett, knight, his 

Answer ( . . . Dec. 1622) of Sir Francis Leigh, kt., and Dame Ghristian 
liis wife. 

Answers ( . . . 1622) of Sir Robert Heath, kt., the solicitor-general, and 
Sir John Leigh, kt., for themselves and for Thomas Leigh, William Leigh and 
John Leigh, sons of Sir Francis Leigh, kt., by Dame Ghristian his wife. [Bill 
and answers in defective conditions.] 

Gonceming the manors of Stanes and Stan well, co. Middlesex. 

wife of . , , 

Richard = Elizabeth: 
Warren survived 
of Lon- both hus- 
d o n , bands 

:Sir Thomas Knyvett 
Lord Knyvett 

Sir Francis Leigh, kt.=Christian 

I _l J I 

Ehzabeth Thomas William John 
Leigh Leigh Leigh 

Sir Edv4rard= Katharine Knyvett 

Gary, knight 

first married to the 
Lord Paget. Sur- 
vived both hus- 

Sir Philip Gary, kt. 

John Gary, esquire 

Gatcher v. Titmus and others 

Bill (25 April 1646) of John Gatcher (lately come of full age), son 
and heir of John Gatcher late of Meldreth, co. Gambridge, husbandman, de- 

Answer (3 June 1646) of William Titmus and Benjamin Payne both of 
Meldreth (defendants with Mary Gierke, Thomas Gierke, Alexander Blayn 
and John Adleston. The said Mary is relict, and the said Thomas son and 
heir, of Edward Gierke of Triploe, co. Gambridge, deceased, the said Thomas 
being a minor). 

Gonceming a mortgage by the said John Gatcher the elder of copy- 
holds in Meldreth. 

GoLLiER V. Remnant and others 

G-Jg- Bill (25 Oct. 1645) of Robert Gollier of Surrey. 
Answers (6 Nov. 1645) of Robert Remnant, Thomas West (a scrivener) 
and Francis Dirricke. 

Gonceming a loan to the complainant made by the said Robert 



i. u. 

Robert Collier of Purbright=Margaret= Robert Remnant 

CO. Surrey, a testator 

df ceased the defendant, 
married in i6i8 

Robert Collier 
the complainant 

Cole v. Lowther and another 

C-g^g- Bill (i Nov. 1645) of George Cole of the precinct of Old Bride- 
well, draper, for himself and as guardian of John Cole his brother, a minor. 

Answer ( ) of Sir John Lowther of Lowther, baronet (defen- 

dant with Thomas Cole). 

Concerning messuages and lands called Hardrowe and Symondstone 
in Wensleydale, co. York, whereof George Cole, father of the com- 
plainants, died seised in 1629, leaving behind him Thomas Cole the 
defendant his eldest son and heir, the two complainants his other 
sons and Rose, Anne, Hester and Elizabeth his daughters. The said 
Rose was then married to Thomas Jobson, gent., one of the sons of 
Matthew Jobson late of Midlam, co. York, esquire, since deceased. 
The said Thomas Cole was then but young and newly come of age. 
The said Anne married Matthew Metcalfe and Hester married 
Edward Moore. Elizabeth the fourth sister was brought up in 
Ireland, and coming of age made a journey into England to receive 
her portion, and falling sick at Burton in Warrell, co. Chester, made 
a will 26 Dec. 1639, giving her portion to the complainants. The 
complainant George Cole came of age in 1636. 

Chedle c. Bishop of Bangor and others 

C-Jy Bill (17 May 1637) of Rowland Chedle, Doctor of Divinity. 

Answer (14 June 1637) of Michael Evans, clerk (defendant with Edmund, 
Bishop of Bangor, William Wyn, Thomas Dray cote, John Hopton and Harry 

Concerning the prebendal dignity called the Treasurership of Bangor 
to which belong the two churches of Llanvichangle y Traythey and 
Llandegv^yn in Merioneth. 

Cope v. Styles 

C-Jg- Bill (i I May 1646) of Thomas Cope and Anne Cope his wife. 
Answer (16 May 1646) of Elizabeth Styles, widow (defendant with 
Robert Mell). 

Concerning the lease of a messuage in Long Aker, co. Middlesex, of 
which Katherine Styles of St. Martin's in the fields, spinster, is said by 



the complainants to have been possessed. She married one Martin 
Seaman, and they had issue one Hanna Saphia Seaman. The said 
Martin made his will nuncupative, giving the messuage and household 
stuff to his said daughter, who was then very young, and making 
Anthony Styles her uncle his executor. The said Hanna Saphia 
Seaman afterwards died, and since then her uncle is also dead. Ad- 
ministration of the goods of the said Hanna Saphia was granted by the 
Archdeacon of Middlesex to the complainant, the said Anne Cope 
being aunt to the deceased on the mother's side. The defendant 
Elizabeth says that her father-in-law Oliver Styles of St. Martin's in 
the fields, gent., was possessed of the lease which was made to him by 
John Russell, esq., and after the death of Oliver the lease came to his 
son and heir Anthony Styles, his exor., of whose will dated 14 Dec. 
2 1 Car. I. this defendant his relict is executrix. 

Cornish v. Cornish 

CgV Bill (10 Feb. i6f|) of Richard Cornish of Thurleston, co. Devon, 

Answer (12 Feb. i6|-^) of William Cornish (defendant with Joan Cornish 
and Henry Luscombe, clerk). 

Concerning the estate of Andrew Cornish, the complainant's father, 
who lately died intestate and indebted (according to the complainant) 
above the value of his estate, of which the complainant was adminis- 
trator. He left, by the defendant Joan his wife, four sons and a 
daughter : Richard, Robert, William, Andrew and Joan, and died 
about seven years since. 

Cleland Cleland 

C-^ Bill (9 Feb. 1 6-|^) of John Cleland of Eastportlemouth, co. Devon, 

Answer (31 March 1630) of Hester Cleland, widow. 

Concerning land which descended to the complainant as heir of his 
mother. The complainant alleges that, soon after his father's third 
marriage, he was sent for a year in France, and on his return was 
apprenticed to a merchant in Totness, where he continued five years, 
but, * havinge a greater desire to learninge then to marchantdisinge,' he 
compounded with his master, and was admitted as a poor scholar to 
Bennett College in Cambridge. There he continued five years in 
credit and good estimation, albeit his father allowed him but six 
pounds yearly, whilst the son of the defendant was allowed near forty 
pounds. After his father's death his friends for love and pity pro- 
cured him the advowson of Eastportlemouth. The defendant declares 
that the complainant's carriage, when an apprentice, was * so ill, 
dissolute, expensive and disserviceable that his master discarded him,' 
and that he thought not upon learning until persuaded thereto, 
sometime after his return home, by Samuel Cleland his elder brother. 



Rosamond Elsen=Richard Cleland, clerk,=Elizabeth=Hester Maie 

married about 
46 years since 

rector of Eastportle- 
mouth, CO. Davon 

Samuel a daughter one son and John Cleland of 
Cleland now living two daughters Eastportlemouth, 

now dead clerk ^ 


the defendant 

a son 

Cocks v. Cocks and another 

Cg^ Bill (27 April 1646) of James Cocks, citizen and merchant of 

Answer (3 Oct. 1646) of Dorothy Mainwaring, widow, and Charles 
Cocks the younger, gent., two of the children of John Cocks, gent., deceased 
(defendants with Charles Cocks, esquire, John Cocks and James Cocks). 

Plea and demurrer (31 Oct. 1646) of Charles Cocks, esquire, a defendant. 
Concerning the estate of John Cox of Harkesteed, co. Suffolk, esquire, 
deceased, the complainant's late brother, who was seised of the manor 
of Harkesteed, etc. John Cocks and Henry Cocks are witnesses to 
the answer dated 3 Oct. 1646, which was sworn at Dombleton, co. 

George Cocks John Cocks of Harksteed, James Cocks Charles Cocks Christopher 

died before his esquire, made a will about the compt. of the Inner Cocks, died 

brother John 16 years since= Temple, esq., after his 

I the defendant brother John 

John Cocks 
son and heir 

Charles Cocks James Cocks 

Dorothy Cocks 
extrix. of her 
father and now 
relict of . . . 

Crawley v. Holbrooke 

C-^ Bill (2 May 1 646) of Thomas Crawley of Stepney, co. Middlesex, 
ship carpenter. 

Answer (i i May 1646) of Mary Holbrooke, widow, of Popler in Stepney. 
Concerning a bond for payment of 100/. entered into by the com- 
plainant, who alleges that about two years since he was bound out on 
a voyage to New England and that the defendant, pretending friend- 
ship to him, offered to assist him in his business when he was away. 
About six months before he had buried his wife, by whom he had an 
only child who was at nurse with the wife of one Matthew Hicken- 
bobbs. The defendant answers that the complainant solicited her in 
way of marriage. The complainant's mother brought her the child 
and persuaded her to keep it, which she did for three quarters of a year. 



Crofts v. Hemings and others 

Cg^ Bill (9 May 1646) of Matthew Crofts of Priors Hardwick, co. 
Warwick, yeoman. 

Answers (13 May 1646) of Richard Hemings, John Crofts and Robert 
Welch, defendants. 

Concerning lands in Priors Hardwick of which the complainant's 
father, Richard Crofts of Priors Hardwick, yeoman, died seised about 
16 years since, leaving the complainant his son and heir, who came to 
full age about 5 years since. 

Chambers v. Earners 

C-^ Bill (i June 1646) of Mary Chambers of Loppington, co. Salop, 
widow, administratrix of Francis Chambers, gent., her late husband. 

Answer (8 June 1 646) of Hatton Barners, gent., and Anne his wife. 

Concerning a bond dated in January 1 5 Car. I. wherein Francis 
Chambers became bound with John Bromhall of Northwood Hall, 
gent., as surety for the said John to one Isabel Price, widow. The 
said Isabel afterwards died and Anne Price, her daughter and adminis- 
tratrix, has married with the defendant Hatton Barners. The defendants 
speak of one Mr. Prince as their friend and kinsman. 

Collin v. Day 

C^ Bill (21 April 1646) of Thomas Collin of London, merchant. 
Answer (28 April 1646) of Thomas Day of London, merchant. 

Concerning the complainant's dealings in hops with the defendant. 

Cape v. Bartlett and another 

C^ Bill (17 April 1646) of Thomas Cape of London, baker, and Mary 
his wife. 

Answers (25 April 1646) of Anthony Bartlett and James Best. 

Concerning three messuages in Whitechapel whereof Thomas Bartlet 
of Whitechapel, bellfounder, died seised. He made a will 7 March 
163 1 giving one of them to Anthony his son, the defendant, and two 
to the complainant Mary, his daughter. 

Dale v. East India Company 

D^ Bill (7 Nov. 1629) of Dame Elizabeth Dale, late the wife and extrix. 
of Sir Thomas Dale, knight, deceased. 

Plea (27 and 28 Jan. i6|^) of the Governor and Company of Merchants 
of London, trading to the East Indies. 

Concerning a voyage which Sir Thomas Dale began in Feb. i6i|^ as 
Admiral of a fleet of the Company's ships. 


David Howell and others 

D|- Bill (14 July 1 641) of Roger David of Bedwelty, co. Monmouth, 
yeoman, exor. of the nuncupative will of Rice Thomas of Bedwelty, deceased. 

Answer (2 3 Oct. 1 64 1 ) of Dido Howell alias William of Bedwelty (defendant 
with Edward Morgan, esq., Henry Morgan, esq., and many others). 

Concerning the estate of Rice Thomas of Bedwelty, deceased. 

DuNiNG V. Cruse 

Di Bill (7 July 1647) of Nicholas Duning of Ugborrough, co. Devon, 

Answer taken at Gulwill in Staverton (24 Sep. 1 647) of George Cruse of 
Ashburton, gent. 

Concerning the compt.'s dealings with the defendant Cruse, who 
practised as an attorney in the Stannary Courts. The said Nicholas 
relates how * the rage of the souldiers on the kings partie was so great * 
that he was enforced for his better refuge to fly to the garrison of 

Dereham v. Murray and others 

D|- Bill (22 May 1644) of Sir Thomas Dereham of West Dereham, co. 
Norfolk, knight. 

Answer (20 Dec. 1644) of Henry Murray and Anne his wife, (defendants 
with Henry Dereham of the Inner Temple, esq., a son of compt., and Olive 
his wife, Margaret Kirby the elder and her daughter Margaret Kirby the 
younger and Walter Sanky). 

Concerning the manor of Crimplesham, co. Norfolk, whereof the com- 
plainant was seised for his life with remr. to Thomas Dereham, his son 
and heir apparent. The defendant Anne Murray is dau. of Paul, late 
Viscount Baninge, deceased, one of whose exors. was Jeffrey Kirby, 
esquire. The elder Margaret Kirby is relict and extrix. of this Jeffrey, 
whose daus. and co-heirs are Olive, wife of defendant Henry Dereham, 
and the said Margaret Kirby the younger. 

DoDswoRTH V. Smelt 

Di Bill (23 Oct. 1645) of Margaret Dodsworth, one of the daughters 
of John Dodsworth, late of Thornton Watlas, co. York, esquire. 

Answer (4 June 1646) of Matthew Smelt of Kirkby Fleetham, co. York, 

Concerning a sum of money which was in the hands of Alice 
Dodsworth, the complainant's elder sister, who was wife to the 
defendant Smelt. The said Alice died about two years since, and 
the complainant's father and mother about eighteen months since. 



Denman V. Hamerton and others 

Bill ( . . . May 1 646) of Nicholas Denman, alderman of Kingston 
upon Hull. 

Answer (23 Feb. 164-f-) of George Nightingale, gent, (defendant with 
Nicholas Hamerton and Thomas Dawson). 

Concerning messuages and lands in Misterton and Stockworth, co. 
Notts, and in the county of York, whereof, according to the com- 
plainant's story, William Bett was seised, which William gave the 
same by his will dated 1584 to Anne Bett his daughter, and to the 
heirs male of her body, with remr. to the heirs of her body, with 
remr. to William Denman son of John Denman, Isabel the wife of 
William Bett having some estate therein for life. If she married 
again, John Denman (son-in-law of William Bett, and brother of the 
said William Denman) and Rosamond his wife should have the pre- 
mises in Northlaverton for the rest of the lease. The said Isabel 
married one Nicholas Hamerton, and afterwards Anne Bett died 
without issue. Afterwards Isabel died, and the said William and 
John Denman and Rosamond his wife are all dead also. The com- 
plainant is son and heir and exor. of the said John Denman, who 
survived Rosamond his wife. The defendant states that he is in 
possession of certain messuages and lands in North Leverton, in right 
of his nephew William Nightingale, an infant under the age of 20 
years, son and heir of William Nightingale, deceased. 

DoBsoN v. Moore and another 

D-f Bill (17 May 1642) of John Dobson of Treaswell, co. Notts, son 
and heir to William Dobson, deceased, who was son and heir to Thomas 
Dobson, deceased, who was son and heir to Thomas Dobson, deceased. 

Answer (13 June 1642) of Thomas Moore and Thomas Codd, defendants. 
Concerning two tenements in Gainsburgh, co. Lincoln, which as the 
compt. alleges one Thomas Dobson granted to Thomas Dobson his 
son, grandfather of the compt. The defendant's answer that one 
William Dobson of Barneby on the Moor, yeoman, by his deed 
indented, dated 23 Oct. 24 Elizabeth, conveyed a certain tenement 
in Gainsburgh to Robert Shadforth of Gainsburgh, yeoman, who 
died seised of the same tenement, which came to Ruth Shadforth, 
his daughter and heir, who afterwards married one Nevill of Grove, 
CO. Notts, gent. In her widowhood Ruth Nevill, by deed dated 
30 April 40 Eliz., conveyed the tenement to Anne her daughter 
and heir and her husband Thomas Fotherby. Shortly after this 
the said Ruth, Thomas and Anne, by deed 4 May 43 Eliz. sold 
the premises to Ciprian Godfrey of Gainsburgh, gent., who sold the 
same by deed dat. 6 May 7 Jac. I. to Thomas Smith, waterman, and 
Thomas More, ironmonger, both of Gainsburgh. The defendant 
Thomas More is son and heir of the aforesaid Thomas Moore. 


Thomas Dobson 

Thomas Dobson 

Robert Shadforth of= 
Gainsburgh, yeoman j 

William Dobson 
son and heir 

Nevill of Grove=Ruth Shadforth dau, and heir 
CO. Notts, gent. | relict of Nevill 

John Dobson of Treaswell 
CO. Notts, son and heir 

Thomas Fotherby=Anne Nevill 
dau. and heir 

Dawson v. Crosfielde and another 

D-i- Bill (9 Feb. 1 64 J) of Joan Dawson, late wife and extrix. of Myles 
Dawson of Crostwait, co. Westmorland, mercer (who died about three years 
since), complainant against Thomas Crosjfielde of the Powbanke in Wither- 
slacke, co. Westmorland, yeoman, and James Field, defendants. 

Concerning alleged losses suffered through Peter, son of the said 
Thomas Crosfielde, who was apprenticed to Myles Dawson about 
eleven years since, the defendants joining in a bond for the perform- 
ance of the articles. The said Peter is described as being * of a lewd 
and wicked life — a haunter of alehowses, tavernes and bad places.' 

Durham (Dean and Chapter of) and another v. Richardson and another 

Di Bill (10 Feb. 1641) of the Dean and Chapter of Durham and 
William Dalby of Broughton, co. Lincoln, for and on behalf of Batholomew 
Fewler of Carlton, co. York, and Anne his wife, complainants against William 
Richardson and Anne Walker, widow. 

Concerning a bond dated 17 Nov. 1632, wherein William Richardson 
and Anne Richardson, widow, of Cliffe in Hembrough, co. York, were 
bound for the execution of the will of Christopher Richardson, late 
of Cliffe, deceased, and for the payments of the child's portions and 
bequests to Anne Richardson, Christopher Richardson, Robert Richard- 
son and Isabel Richardson, the children of the deceased. The will 
was dated 13 Sep. 1632. Anne the daughter is now wife of 
Bartholomew Fewler, and hath not received her portion. Anne the 
executrix has since married and survived one Francis Walker. 

D-j^ Bill (30 Nov. 1 641) of John Debanck of Tillingham, co. Essex, 
yeoman, complainant against William Norris, yeoman, and Annie Debanck of 
Tillingham, widow. 

Concerning a debt of William Norris for which the complainant 

became bound as a surety in Jan. 14 Car. I. 

Debanck v, Norris and another 



Draper v. Willys and others 

Dy^y Bill (23 Nov. 1629) of David Draper of Stonley, co. Warwick, 

Answer (9 April 1630) of George Willys of Fennycompton, gent, 
(defendant with Henry Murcott of Tachbrooke Mallery, co. Warwick, 
yeoman, John Perkins of Tachbrooke, yeoman, and Richard Harvye of 
Tachbrooke, yeoman). 

Concerning a loan made about two years since by the complainant 

to the defendant Murcott. 

Dell v. Plomer 

D^ Replication ( ) of Ralph Dell to the answer of 

Thomas Plomer, defendant. 

A denial that the ground whereupon is a cottage now in question was 
ever part of the jointure of the Lady Cotton, or that the cottage was 
ever conveyed to William Plomer, father of the defendant Thomas 

Darracott v. Facye 

Dj^ Bill ( ) of William Darracott of Chittlehampton, 

CO. Devon, yeoman, executor of John Darracott his father, of Landkey, co. 
Devon, yeoman, deceased. 

Answer taken at Barnstaple in Devon (6 June 5 Car. I.) of Elizabeth 
Facye, widow, relict and extrix. of Humfrey Facye, deceased, and sister of 
the complainant. 

Concerning the goods of John Darracott, deceased. One Tepper, a 
widow, is mentioned as another sister of the complainant. 

Dove v, Hardye 

D^ Bill (8 Nov. 163 1 ) of John Dove of New Sarum, gent. 

Answer (9 Nov. 163 1) of Thomas Hardye, esquire. 

Concerning the manor of Keighaven, whereof Jane Hardye, widow, 
was seised for a term of years. At a court held 20 Jan. 1 2 Jac. I. she 
surrendered four copyhold tenements with lands called Batchley, some- 
time in the tenure of John Gawney to Thomas Hardye, esq., her son, 
(the defendant) and to her daughters Anne and Dorothy Hardye for 
their lives. 

Deermar v. Deermar 

D^ Bill (25 June 1641) of William Deermar of Harding, co. Herts, 
yeoman, complainant against John Dearmar and Thomas Deermar, father and 
brother of the complainant. 

Concerning lands in Carrington, co. Herts, whereof John Deermar 
was seised, whose son and heir the complainant is. The said John 
Dearmar is said to have engaged to settle the lands upon the com- 
plainant in consideration of his being bound for payment of 60/. to 
the young children of the said John, in which bond the complainant 
became bound to John and Edward Deermar his brother. The 
defendant John, who is old and weak, was afterwards persuaded to 
settle the lands upon his son the defendant Thomas. 



THE manor of Wigton gave its name to a family who 
held a position of considerable eminence in the county 
for two centuries. Its first Norman owner was Odard, sheriff 
of Carlisle, a man of great local repute said to have been 
seneschal of Ranulf Meschin and also sheriff of Northumber- 
land. It is stated on the highest authority that Henry 1. 
enfeoffed Odard with the manor of Wigton. Later evidences 
point to Waldeve, lord of Allerdale, as the grantor, a supposi- 
tion not without force seeing that the manor was parcel of 
"Waldeve's fee. Be that as it may, the jurors of the great 
inquest of 12 12 looked upon the confirmation of the Crown 
as the source of Odard's title. The first owner of Wigton, 
called at an early period Odard de Logys for the sake of dis- 
tinction, should not be confused with another Odard who 
flourished in the county at the same time, that is, Odard son 
Hildret, known in 1130 as Odard de Chaerleolio or Odard of 
Carlisle. It is disputable whether or not Odard de Bebban- 
burgh or Bamburgh, sheriff of Northumberland, was identical 
with Odard de Logys as the name was common in the northern 
counties at this period."^ 

1 In the sheriff's inquisition of 1 2 1 2 Henry I. is named as the grantor of 
Wigton to Odard the shenff {Fictoria History of Cumberland, i. 421). In a 
document among the * Tower Miscellaneous Rolls ' (No. ; Bain, Calendar 
of Documents relating to Scotland, ii. 64) and also in the * Chronicon Cumbrie ' 
{Monasticon, iii. 584), statements not to be relied on unless supported by other 
evidence (Fictoria Hist. Cumb. i. 297—8), Waldeve son of Gospatrick is named 
as the original grantor. In the Tower Roll Odard is called seneschal of Ranulf 
Meschin : in both documents he is called Odard de Logys or Logis. The 
distinction between contemporary Odards is of the highest importance. There 
is a deed in the Register of Wetherhal (pp. 143-7, ed. J. E. Prescott) which 
shows that Odard the sheriff was a different person from Odard son of Hildret 
de Carlel. This Odard of Carlisle was associated with William Meschin and 
Archbishop Thurstin when the priory of St. Bees was founded {Harleian MS. 
434, lib. i. 2). Odard, * vicecomes de Bebbanburgh,' witnessed the founda- 
tion charter of Selkirk granted by Earl David (Dalrymple, Collections, p. 405) 
and is called sheriff of Northumberland by Prior Richard of Hexham Memo- 




For several descents the family name of the owners of 
Wigton alternated between Odard and Adam, necessitating 
the closest attention. Little is known of the first Adam, the 
successor of Odard the sheriff, but he was probably his son. 
In 1 1 8 1 William son of the first Odard had a recognition of 
right to three carucates of land against the second Odard son 
of Adam, for which he paid a fine of three marks.^ The 
name of the second Odard is found often in the Pipe Rolls 
and elsewhere till his death in 1208.^ His wife's name was 
Milisent, who after his death married Reynold son of Adam 
de Carduil. It is evident that she was the same person as 
Milisent of Blakehale and that it was through her that the 
manors of Blakehall and perhaps of Melmorby were added to 
the possessions of this family.^ 

The second Adam son of the second Odard, succeeding in 
1208, paid eighty marks for having his father's lands with the 

rialsy p. 62, Surtees Society) and by Symeon of Durham in 1121 {Opera, i. 
116, Surtees Society). Odard was acting as sheriff of Northumberland in 
1 1 30 {Pipe Roll, p. 35, ed. J. Hunter). The late Mr. Hodgson Hinde re- 
garded these three Odards as the same person {History of Northumberland, i. 
203—4). Horace Round has argued for the identity of Odard de Logis 

and Odard de Bebbanburgh {Genealo^st, v. 25, new ser.), and Archdeacon 
Prescott has stoutly pleaded for their distinction {Reg. ofWetherhal, pp. 145—6. 
In 1 1 30 Symon Dispensator owed forty marks of silver for a plea which the 
king had against Odard de Chaerleolio his brother-in-law {Pipe Roll, p. 79). 

1 Pipe Roll, 27 Hen. II. 

2 In I ig5 Odard son of Adam was fined half a mark because he had not 
whom he pledged {Pipe Roll, 32 Hen. II.), and in 1201 he paid 100/. that 
he might not go beyond the sea {ne transfretent) and five marks as scutage in 
1203 {Rotuli de Obletis, p. 145, ed. Hardy: Pipe Rolls, 3 & 5 John). John 
Denton, who wrote about the year 1620, failing to notice the intermediate 
link in the pedigree, mistook Odard the grandson for Odard the sheriff, and 
in consequence was obliged to make the latter live * above an hundred years ' 
{History of Cumberland, p. 62, ed. R. S. Ferguson). The second Odard died 
in 1208, for in that year his son succeeded {Pipe Roll, 10 John). 

^ The identity of Milisent is a point of considerable interest. It is stated 
on the same roll that Reynold owed forty marks for having to wife Milisent 
widow of Odard son of Adam, and that Milisent de Blakehale was engaged in 
pleas of the forest at the same time {Pipe Roll, 11 John). That was 1209, 
the year after Odard's death. As Milisent was mother of Adam, the next 
owner of Wigton, it is not improbable that the manor of Blackhall descended 
in this way to the Wigton family. It was reckoned among the possessions of 
Odard de Wigton who died thirty years later {Inq. p.m. incert. temp. Hen. III. 
No. 251). John Denton was of opinion that * Blachall or Blackhill commonly 
called Bleckall ' was * given by Henry I. to Odard de Logis baron of Wigton * 
{Hist, of Cumb. p. 103), but he gave no authority for the statement. 


pertinents which ought to descend to him by inheritance.^ As 
the heir of Odard the sheriff, he was the owner in 1 2 1 2 when 
the great inquest of fees was made for the whole of the county, 
and was the first that we have found who adopted the territo- 
rial name of Wyggeton or Wigton. He was known as Adam 
de Wigton, a style afterwards continued by his descendants. 
In 1 22 1 and 1222 he was employed with others in taking a 
view of the forest of Cumberland for the purpose of reporting 
its condition to the Crown.^ He must have died about 1225, 
for in that year Odard son of Adam de Wigeton, that is the 
third Odard, did homage for the land he held in chief and 
paid ten marks for his relief.^ This was the Odard son of 
Adam who made a grant of pasture in his domain to the 
monks of Holmcultram and confirmed the gifts of Adam son 
of Lambert and Elyas his son to the same house.^ Dying in 
1238, his lands, heir and widow were delivered in ward to 
Walter, Bishop of Carlisle.^ It was upheld in law that the 
custody of the lands of Odard de Wigentona in the county of 
Cumberland remained with the king because the said Odard 
was a tenant-in-chief by the serjeanty of going with him in 
the army against Scotland in the vanguard, and on its return 
in the rearguard, a service which was declared by inquisition 
to be grand serjeanty, and besides because he paid cornage 
which in English was called horngeld.^ Odard left a widow 
Christine and a son Adam about two years of age. Two 
months after Odard's death another boy Walter was born.^ 

At a tender age the third Adam was married to Isabel 
de Forde, daughter of Sir Odonell de Forde and Cecily his 
wife, one of the three co-heiresses of Robert de Muscampis 
who owned large possessions in Northumberland. But the 
boy did not live to succeed to his father's manors as he died 
in 1 2 50- 1 about the age of fourteen years. In 1253 Isabella 
the youthful widow of Adam de Wigton put in a plea in the 
king's court for a third part of the manors of Wigton and 
Stainton, excepting one carucate and fourteen acres of land 

^ Pipe Roll, 10 John ; Rotuli de Finibus, 9 John, p. 422, ed. Hardy. 

2 Patent Rolls (1216-25), 3i3> 3^5, Rolls Series. 

3 Fine Roll, 10 Hen. III. m. 9 {Excerpta, i. 134-5, ed. C. Roberts). 
^ Register of Holmcultram, MS. fF. 79-80. 

5 Originalia, 22 Hen. III. m. 3 ; Bain, Calendar of Documents, \. (1438-43). 

6 Brae ton's Note Book, No. 1270, ed. F. W. Maitland. 
Inq. p.m. incert. temp. Hen. III. No. 251. 



and a third of seventy-two acres and two bovates in Mel- 
morby which she claimed as dower. John le Fraunceys, 
guardian of the heir and the estates admitted her title to a 
widow's portion.^ 

Walter came of age and succeeded Odard his father in 
1258. The sheriff of the county certified to the justices in 
June of that year that Odard, father of Walter, held of 
William de Fortibus, Earl of Albemarle, the manor of Wigton 
by cornage and of the king in chief the manor of Melmorby 
with its pertinents, Steynton, Blakhille and Wardwyk, and 
also that Walter his son, the next heir, would be twenty-two 
years of age on August 15 next, Walter's age having been 
verified by a jury of his neighbours.^ This member of the 
family played a considerable part in local and military affairs 
during his tenure of the estates. His dealings with the 
neighbouring monastery of Holmcultram were friendly if not 
benevolent and generous. In 1265 he confirmed the posses- 
sions of the monks within his manor of Wigton, and in 1270 
he came to an agreement with H[enry], abbot of the house, 
about certain purprestures and improvements, at the same 
time giving him power to inclose a wood at Aykehevid, called 
Aykehevidscawe.^ He also granted the monastery certain 
way-leaves Mn his barony of Wyggeton.' * In 1266 Walter 
of Wigton petitioned for quittance of puture of the forest 
and horngeld in respect of his manors of Wigton and Black- 
hall, but the privilege was denied on the ground that it would 
be injurious to the king's interest.^ But he was more fortu- 
nate in the following year, for he was allowed to assart and 

1 Coram Rege Roll^ 37 Hen. III. No. 91, m. 13; Bain, i. 1933. Adam 
de Wigton must have been dead before May 4, 1 2 5 1 , for in that year an . 
* extent ' of the lands in Northumberland belonging to Isabella widow of Adam 
de Wygeton was made {}nq. p.m. 35 Hen. III. No. 41). The widow was 
sixteen years of age and is called the daughter of the first begotten daughter 
of Robert de Muscampis {Calendarium Genealogicum, i. 37). Next year she 
had licence to marry whom she pleased {Pipe Roll, 36 Hen. III. m. iid.i 
Bain i. 1856). In one of the inquisitions it is said that Isabella was married 
to a certain boy {puero) called Adam de Wyginton : she was fifteen years of 
age and her husband of the age of thirteen or fourteen years : both were wards 
of William de Huntercumbe {Inq. p.m. 39 Hen. III. No. 40; Bain, i. 1967, 
P- 372). 

2 Coram Rege Roll, 42 & 43 Hen. III. No. 106 ; Bain, i. 2129. 

3 Harleian MS. 391 1, if. 54, 56. 
* Reg. ofHolmcultram, MS. f. 77. 
5 Inq. p.m. 50 Hen. III. No. 28. 


impact his woods in the same manors.-^ He was often em- 
ployed on the king's service in the Welsh wars from 1276 
till his death, and was summoned to the parliament which 
met at Shrewsbury in 1283, together with other barons of the 
kingdom.^ Walter of Wigton died in 1286, and was suc- 
ceeded by John, his son and heir, who was twenty-two years 
of age.^ 

Sir John of Wigton, baron of Wigton, the last heir male of 
his line, spent most of his life in active service in parliament 
and the field. As knight of the shire of Cumberland he was 
returned to serve in the parliaments which met at Lincoln in 
1 30 1 and Westminster in 1305 and 1313.^ His military 
services in the Welsh and Scottish wars of Edward I. were 
many and various.® On the border he was a tower of 
strength as a conservator of the peace at home and as the 
indefatigable pursuer of Robert de Brus through the southern 
shires of Scotland. In 1 295-6 Sir John caused William de 
Wytyngham to be attached at Bolton and imprisoned as a 
Scottish traitor in that he had absented himself from his lands 
to avoid service in the army against the Scots, the said 
William being a kinsman of John ^ Rede ' Comyn, the king's 
enemy While King Edward was at Lanercost on his last 
journey to Scotland, he ordered him in 1306-7 to levy 200 
stout footmen in Cumberland and bring them to Carlisle for 
the purpose of pursuing Robert de Brus and his accomplices.^ 
On that business he was often engaged. It would be tedious 
to recount his services in war, as he was mixed up in most of 
the assays and expeditions of this troublesome period. Little 

1 Patent Roll, 51 Hen. III. The rise of the vill of Wigton about this 
time as a centre of industry and commerce is evident from the king's grant in 
1262 of a weekly market on Tuesdays and a yearly fair on the 7th, 8th and 
9th of September {Charter Roll, 46 Hen. III. pt. i. No. 5 ; Placita de Quo 
Waranto, p. 116, Record Commission). 

2 Patent Rolls, 4 Edw. I. m. 2, 5 Edw. I. m. 14 ; Foedera, i. 537-8, 608, 
630, new edit. ; Palgrave, Parliamentary Writs, i. 15, 194, 223, 226, 246 ; 
Dignity of a Peer, iii. 37, 40, 44, 47, 49. 

3 Inq. p.m. 14 Edw. I. No. 15 ; Calend. Geneal. \. 368 ; Fine Roll, 14 
Edw. I. m. 13 ; OngLnatta, 14 Edw. L m. 4 (i. 51, Record Commission). 

* Parliaments of England, i. 13, 18, 43, Blue Book ; Parliamentary Wnts, 
i. 102, 156-7, etc. 

^ Fcedera, i. 675, etc. ii. 8, 78 ; Dignity of a Peer^ iii. 51, 54-5, etc. ; 
Pari. Writs, ii. div. iii. 161 1-2. 
Bain, ii. 189. 

Pat. Roll, 35 Edw. I. m. 32 ; Bain, ii. 1902. 



reward did he receive from the great Edward, though we 
find him among the petitioners for lands or preferment in 
Scotland in 1305.-^ Edward II. however gave him the custody 
of the barony of Liddel, which Joan widow of John Wake 

On the death of Sir John de Wigton all his estates es- 
cheated pending the declaration of the rightful heir. The 
inquisitions of 1 3 1 5 were at variance, and a long suit in law 
ensued. Soon after his marriage Sir John was separated from 
the Lady Dionyse de Luvetot his wife, and ultimately ob- 
tained a divorce in the ecclesiastical court of Carlisle. A 
daughter Margaret was born of the marriage. On Sir John's 
death the manors were claimed by Margaret his only child 
and also by his five sisters and their heirs. The Somerset 
jurors declared in favour of Margaret formerly wife of John 
de Crokedak, but the Cumberland jurors supported the 
claims of the five sisters.^ The dispute was referred to the 
lay as well as the ecclesiastical courts. Margaret and her 
mother moved the provincial court of York to set aside the 
divorce, as it had been obtained irregularly in the court 
below.^ Their opponents pleaded that John and his wife 
were divorced on account of the precontract of Dionyse to 
one John Paynel. In 1320 the court accepted a certificate 
from the Bishop of London of Margaret's legitimacy, where- 
upon she was adjudged the lawful heir and seizin was given her.^ 

The Lady Margaret de Wigton, who succeeded her 
father, was the last of the family to use the name or own the 
manor. Though she was married four times, she died child- 
less, and the estates not alienated during her lifetime reverted 
to the lord of the fee or to the Crown. As her mother had 
maintained her right to a widow's portion of Sir John's lands,^ 
the divorce obtained in the diocesan court of Carlisle must 
have been set aside. To meet the expenses of defending her 
title, Margaret was obliged to sell her manors of Melmorby, 

^ Palgrave, Documents and Records, p. 308. 

2 Origina/ia, 3 Edw. II. m. 6 (i. 168, Rec. Commission). 

3 Inq.p.m. 8 Edw. II. No. 6i. 

* Reciter of Bp. Halm, MS. fF. 176-9, 180-1. 

5 Abbrev. Placit. p. 336, Record Gommission. The issue was confused^by 
Sir John's demise of the estates * to his nearer relations ' under licence in 1 3 1 1 
{Pat. Roily 4 Edw. II. pt. ii. m. 5). 

6 Pat. Rollj 6 Edw. III. pt. i. m. 12 ; Inq. p,m. 5 Edw. III. pt. ii. No. 
135 ; Monasticon, v. 599. 





O (n 





-T3 1-1 



5« "So 
o u 

^ s 

CS o 

u bo 

5* « " 

O bo 



s « 



• « , 


« N 






< -o 






^ C o o 



0) o a> a> 

"O T3 

c c fl 
X ^ J3 ^ 






Blackball and Stainton to Robert Parvyng, tbe king's serjeant- 
at-law.^ In 1332 sbe granted land in Wigton, with tbe 
advowson of tbe cburcb, to tbe monastery of Holmcultram 
for tbe bealtb of ber soul. Sbe survived ber four busbands,^ 
and died in 1348. In spite of tbe verdict of tbe inquisition 
after deatb, wbicb declared Ricbard son of Walter de Kirk- 
bride to be ber beir, tbe manor of Wigton escbeated to 
Tbomas son of Antbony de Lucy, lord of tbe bonour of 
Cockermoutb, from wbom it bad been beld.^ Hencefortb 
tbe manor became merged in tbat lordsbip. 


Henry I. assigned tbe manor of Leventon, Levinton, or 
Levington, situated between Carlisle and tbe Scottish border, 
to Ricbard de Boyvill at an annual cornage rent. It is doubt- 
ful whether this Ricbard should be identified with Ricbard 
tbe knight, who appears in the Pipe Roll of 1130 as dis- 
charging a portion of tbe debt due to tbe Crown for lands 
demised to him. The Ricbard of the Pipe Roll appears to be 
the same person as Ricbard Ridere, tbe ancestor of the 
Tilliols, who received tbe grant of the adjoining manor ot 
Scaleby from tbe same king. Ricbard de Boyvill was suc- 
ceeded by his son Adam, who occurs first in the Pipe RoU 
of 1 1 70 in amercement for swine taken in tbe forest. Adam 
son of Richer or Ricbard must have died before 11775 for in 
tbat year Adam bis son paid a fine of ten marks that the 
king might take his homage. Juliane bis wife survived him, 
and was living in 11 83. 

Adam son of Richer and Juliane his wife had two sons, 

1 Pat. Rolls, 7 Edw. III. pt, ii. m. 29, 8 Edw. III. pt. i. m. 21. 

2 Much confusion has arisen over the matrimonial alliances of Margaret or 
Wigton. John de Crokedayk was her first husband, from whom she inherited 
a widow's portion of the manor of Crokedayk and other lands {Inq. p.m. 23 
Edw. Ill, pt. i. No. 86). John de Denoum or Denum was the second 
{Pari. Petitions, No. 2513 ; Bain, iii. 896). In the deeds of the transfer of 
the advowson of Wigton church to the monks of Holmcultram, John de 
Denum is spoken of as formerly her husband, and Sir John Gernon appears at 
a later stage of the negotiations, so that the third marriage must have taken 
taken place in 133 1-2 {Reg. of Bp. Kirhy, MS. ff. 245-9). ^33^ ]oYm de 
Weston was fined for marrying her without licence {Pat. Roll, 10 Edw. III. 
pt. i. m. 32). 

3 Inq. p.m. 23 Edw. III. pt. i. No. 86 ; Ori^naRa, 23 Edw. III. m. 20 
(ii. 201, Record Commission). 


Adam, who succeeded to the barony in 1177, and William, 
who was settled at Westham or Westleventon, now called 
Westlinton. In 1179 Adam son of Adam son of Richer 
endeavoured to dispossess his brother of his inheritance, but 
William appealed and paid a fine of forty marks for a fair 
trial. William was still in possession in 1204. Adam as- 
sumed the name of his manor and was returned to the scutage 
in 1205 and succeeding years as Adam de Levinton. He 
was succeeded by Richard de Levinton, who paid three hun- 
dred marks and three palfreys in 1 2 1 1 for having his land in 
the preceding year. In the Red Book inquisitions Adam and 
Richard are returned as holding by cornage, the latter being 
possessed of three vills in demesne and a half by homage. 

Sir Richard de Levinton, Adam's son, is a familiar figure 
in the transactions of the period in which he lived. Like 
many of the barons of the northern counties, he was impli- 
cated in the barons' resistance ^ to King John, but he returned 
to his allegiance in 12 17. The sheriff was ordered to cancel 
his attendance on the army at Bedford in 1224, for the reason 
that he held his lands by cornage and not by military service.^ 
As a justice he was often employed on the king's business in 
the counties of Cumberland and Westmorland. He held 
assizes of novel disseizin at Carlisle and Appleby in 1236, and 
was one of the assessors in the international settlement of 
1237-42 in satisfaction of the hereditary claims of Scotland 
on the counties of Cumberland and Northumberland.^ A 
dispute arising between him and his neighbour Peter de 
TiUiol, a suit lay in the king's court in 1227 for the adjust- 
ment of the boundaries between their respective manors of 
Levinton and Scales. Richard complained that Peter had 
appropriated four carucates of land, whereof Richer, his 
father's grandfather, was seised in demesne in the time of 
King Henry, the grandfather. Peter, on the other hand, 
asserted that he claimed no more than what his ancestors died 
seised of, from father to son, from their first acquisition {a 
primo conquestu)y and the enfeoffment of their ancestors. The 
sheriff was ordered to take a view and set bounds and let 
them decide by a great assize or a duel.* Richard is said to 

^ Close Roll, 2 Hen. III. p. 374^, Record Commission. 

2 Ibid. 8 Hen. III. pp. 6143, 639^. 

3 Bain, Calendar of Documents, i. 234, 236, 257, etc. 

^ Coram Rege Roll, 1 1 Hen. III. No. 27, m. 4 ; Bain, Calendar, etc. i. 176. 



have acted as a justice itinerant for Cumberland and West- 
morland in 1225 and for Lancashire some years later. 

Richard de Levinton, dying ^ in 1250, was succeeded by 
his brother Ralf, who had inherited by his marriage with Ada 
de Morvill a moiety of the Morvill lands, viz. six carucates in 
Kirkoswald and three carucates in Lazonby worth yearly 
twenty-four marks.^ By this marriage he became brother-in- 
law to Richard de Vernun, husband of Helewise de Morvill, 
Ada's sister. In 1247 Richard de Vernun and Ralf de 
Levinton did homage for the Morvill estates lately belonging 
to Joan de Morvill, mother of Helewise and Ada. The year 
before, an agreement was made between Ralf de Levinton and 
Alan de Chartres for a certain rent in Gamelsby and Glassanby 
which Eve had given to Alan before she married him.^ Ralf 
died in 1253, a few years after his brother, and all his pro- 
perty was taken into the king's hand till the lawful heir was 
declared,^ except of course the land assigned in dower to Ada 
his widow. 

Helewise, only child of Ralf and Ada de Levinton, was 
placed in the custody of Sanchia Countess of Cornwall,^ with 
all her lands, her mother afterwards marrying William de 
Furnivall,^ who died in 1264. Helewise de Levinton married 
Eustace de Balliol, who enjoyed the Levinton property for a 
short period. They had a grant of a weekly market^ on 
Thursday and a yearly fair on June 28 and two following 
days at their manor of 'Levyngton' in 1271. Balliol had 
licence to lease his manors of Levyngton, Skelton, Gamalsby, 
Glassanby and Quorlyngton for four years after Michaelmas, 
1270, as he was about to set out with Prince Edward for the 
Holy Land.® Helewise died childless in 1272, in the twenty- 
fourth year of her age, and the Levinton estates passed to 

1 Fine Rolls, ii, 80, Record Commission ; Inq. p.m. 34 Hen. III. No. 47 ; 
Originalia, 34 Hen. III. m. 7. 

2 Fine Rolls, ii. 10 ; Pipe Roll, 31 Hen. III. m. 8 ; Inq. p.m. 31 Hen. III. 
No. 32. 

3 Feet of Fines, 30 Hen. III. (Cumberland), No. 48. 
^ Fine Rolls, ii. 1 76. 

^ Originalia, i. 1 2b, Record Commission. 
^ Fine Rolls, ii. 414, 507, 525. 

Charter Roll, 46 Hen. III. m. 5 ; Placita de Quo Waranto, p. 129^, 
Record Commission. 

Pat. Roll, 54 Hen. III. m. 10. 


The heirs of this great property were found on inquisition 
to be the six aunts of Helewise de Balliol, sisters of Sir Richard 
de Levinton. The jurors, among whom were Sir William de 
Boyvill and Roger de Levinton, returned an exhaustive survey 
of all the deceased lady's lands, including the manors of 
Levington and Skelton, together with lands and rents in 
Kirkandrews, Glassanby, Gamelsby, Staffal, Aikton, Burgh- 
by-Sands, Bewcastle, Kirkoswald and Lazonby. The Lady 
Helewise was found to hold two parts of Levington, Skelton 
and Kirkandrews in barony, making suit to the county of 

The partition of these estates is of the greatest interest in 
the territorial history of the county. The moieties in Aikton, 
Burgh-by-Sands, Kirkoswald, Lazonby and HofF, which were 
the Morvill lands brought into the family by the marriage of 
Ada de Morvill with Ralf de Levinton, were awarded to 
Thomas, son of Thomas de Multon of Gillesland, as the next 
heir, but the barony of Levinton, or Kirklinton, as it was 
afterwards called, passed to the six daughters of Adam son of 
Adam son of Richer, sisters of Sir Richard de Levinton, 
Helewise's uncle. From the inquisition of 1272 ^ we learn 
that these sister co-heiresses were Eupheme de Kirkbride, 
Isabel de Twynham, Agnes de Corry, Margory de Hampton, 
Juliane de Carrick and Eve de Suthayk, all of whom were 
living in Scotland except Robert son and heir of Margory de 
Hampton, who was of full age, and Richard, the heir of 
Eupheme de Kirkbride, in the county of Cumberland, a 
minor. The division of the Levington lands was made in six 
equal portions: Robert de Hampton received the capital 
messuage of Skelton and other details ; Patrick and Roland de 
Carrick, details ; Walter de Twynham, who appointed Eudes 
de Beauchamp to receive his share, land in Unthank, StafFold, 
Bewcastle and Skelton ; Richard son of Richard de Kirkbride, 
a minor, the manor of Levington, with other lands ; Walter 
de Corry, details ; and Patrick de Suthayk, who appointed 
Walter de Twynham to receive his portion, Kirkandrews and 
details. The church advowsons and knights' fees and the 
dower of Sarra, wife of Robert de Paveley, formerly wife of 
Richard de Levinton, were not divided at that time. All the 

1 Inq. p.m. 56 Hen. III. No. 35 ; Close Roll, i Edw. I. m. 10 ; ibid. 2 
Edw. I. m. \d, 3 Edw. I. m. 25, 30. 



heirs did homage on receiving their portions with the excep- 
tion of Richard de Kirkbride, who was under age, and Patrick 
de Suthayk. The 'dower of Sara de Pavel ey was divided on 
her death in 1300 among the heirs of the six coparceners 
above mentioned. Much of the Levinton property was con- 
ficated during the Scottish war of independence, as several of 
the heirs were Scotsmen and opposed the English claims. 

Richard de Boyville of Levington 

Adam = Juliane 
d. 1 177 

Adam de Levinton, d. i2io 


d. s.p. 


: Robert de 



Ada de Eupheme Isabel Agnes Margery Juliane Eve 
Morvill de de de de de de 

Kirkbride Twynham Corry Hampton Carrick Suthayk 

Helevirise = Eustace de Balliol 
d. s.p. 




LYSONS writing in 1 8 1 6 stated that as the arms of Sandes 
or Sandys were not described in St. George's Visitation 
of 1 6 1 5, it was uncertain what coat was borne by the Cumber- 
land family. By chance I met with evidence at the Public 
Record Office which established the point beyond dispute. 
A short pedigree of Edwin Sandes, bishop of Worcester, 
afterwards Bishop of London and Archbishop of York, com- 
piled by William Hervy, Clarenceux king of arms, will be 
found in the State Papers^ Domestic^ Elizabeth, Addenda, vol. 
xii. 92. It is as follows — being headed by a shield of arms in 
colours — -gold with a dance ^ules between three croslets fitchy gules. 

Sandes of Sainct Bees 
in the conte of 

John Sandes William Sandes 

second sone 

Roger Sandes 

had yssue George Sandes 

had yssue 

William Sandes 

had vssue William Sandes, who served 

ye king in his wars and 
was justice of peace where 
Robert Sandes he lived, had yssue 

Edwyn Sandes 
now bisshope 
of Worcester 

This is the arms and dyssent of Sandes of St. Bees in the Conte of Comberland. 
In witnes wherof I have her unto subscribed my name. 

W. Hervv alias Clarencieulx King of Armes. 

As Edwin Sandes became Bishop of Worcester in 1559 and 
Hervy died in 1567, the date of the compilation must lie 
between these years. It will be seen that the document, 
hitherto unpublished as far as I know, contains many points 
of interest in the genealogy of this family. 






MOST readers of 'The Ancestor are sufficiendy acquainted 
with the general appearance of European medieval 
armour to be able to recognize the period to which any speci- 
men brought under their notice may belong, and therefore a 
few notes on the evolution of the combed helmet may be 

The available supply of armour is so small that the 
ordinary collector is glad to secure any desirable piece obtain- 
able without special reference to its relation to other examples 
in his collection. Consequently the study of the stages of 
developments of any particular weapon or portion of defensive 
armour is somewhat difficult. If the following notes should 
induce other students to take up some of the many other inter- 
esting and obscure questions of a similar nature they will have 
served a useful purpose. 

The ordinary helmet as seen on most suits of armour has 
a well defined comb or crest. The cause of the appearance 
and final disappearance of this comb can only be conjectural, 
and the following suggestions must not be regarded as 
dogmatic assertions. 

From the earliest times the advantages of the steel head- 
guard being brought to an edge or point at the top of the 
crown were so apparent that almost every example known is 
thus designed. 




No. I. The first example selected for illustration has a 
skuUpiece with a simple ridge, and is intended to show the 
last stage of the English helmet before the introduction of 
even an embryo comb. 

My collection being but small it is not suggested that the 
best possible examples are shown, but it is hoped that in each 
instance they will sufficiently answer my purpose. 

This helmet is also curious as being a funeral helm made 
up, for some economical family, from portions of three helmets, 
that is to say, from two buffs or reinforcing pieces and the 
fifteenth century skull-piece already referred to. Although 
closely resembling an ordinary helm of the period it was 
never actually worn in battle. 

No. 2 is a German helmet of the early part of the sixteenth 
century, when fluted armour had come into fashion. At first 
the fluted ridges on the skuUpiece were all practically the 
same in size, but by the time this specimen was made the 
centre ridge had slightly developed, as it was there the necessity 
of resistance against the battle axe, heavy two-handed^ sword 
and mace was the greatest. 

No. 3 shows an English helmet of a little later date, when 
the side flutes had disappeared, the central one, now somewhat 
larger, being alone retained, and the comb may now be 
regarded as a definite and important part of the helmet. 



No. 4, a Spanish helmet, engraved and dated 1557, shows 
the comb still higher, but retaining the graceful curves by 
which it rises from the crownpiece. 

No. 5. An English helmet of the latter half of the 
sixteenth century. Here the comb has reached its fullest 
useful height. The helmet is exceedingly light as compared 
with the earlier examples, its shape making it amply strong 
enough to divert a lance thrust, whilst the high comb defended 
the wearer from the heaviest cut of the swords then in use. 

No. 6. In this Italian burgonet the decadence of armour 
is well illustrated. Although but little later than No. 5, the 
leaders of fashion had decided that for many purposes a light 
headpiece open in front was preferable to the more heavy 
closed helmet which sadly interfered with the breathing of the 
wearer. The comb was carried to an unnecessary height to 
permit of elaborate decoration. 

It should be noted that the skuUpieces of all the helmets 
up to this sample were forged out of one piece of metal with- 
out a join, and as the armourer had also to keep them of the 
correct and mutable thickness throughout, they are wonderful 
instances of mechanical skill. 



No. 7. In this early seventeenth century helmet the comb 
has lost its original value, and exists in a modified form pro- 
bably as a sort of Darwinian survival of an extinct fashion. 
The particular shape of the comb is, so far as I can ascertain 
unique, and the armourer's art having degenerated, the skull- 
piece is made of two parts joined along the comb. 

No. 8. This headpiece, worn by the troopers during the 
Cromwellian wars, only retains the once important comb as a 
convenient means of strongly joining the two sides of the 
helmet, and is a mere ridge. 

No. 9. This light English casque of about the same 
period has lost every trace of a comb, the armourer evidently 
thinking he showed superior skill in joining its two halves 
without the ugly ridge shown in No. 8, and the skull, so far 
as the shape is concerned, is very similar to the late fifteenth 
century helm with which my series commenced. 

Considerations of space have prevented details being given 
as to the weapons against which these helmets were a defence ; 
but in this instance the wearer evidently recognized that no | 
armour could resist firearms, and so long as it saved him from 
a sword slash in a skirmish, or from boiling water or lead 
when assaulting a fortified house, he was content. 

A consideration of the evolution and decay of the combed 
helmet is, as will be seen from these notes, a simple matter. 
How much more interesting would be an explanation of the 
causes leading to the manufacture of the elaborate sword hilts 
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, or the reasons for 
the extraordinary diversity of the strange shafted weapons of 
the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries. 



THE story of Arms and the Inland Revenue Office should 
be written from the inside of that office if the arduous 
day's work of a civil servant would but permit of such liter- 
ary relaxations. The application of the tax upon armorial 
bearings leaves much to be amended from the point of view 
of everybody but the humourist, yet the only proposal for 
amendment comes, as might be expected, trom the eager and 
disinterested gentleman who sees that England would be a 
terror to foes without and an Eden garden within were but 
the College of Arms in Queen Victoria Street restored to that 
position of splendid authority which it possessed at some un- 
specified period in the olden time. With a herald lying in 
wait on the one hand and on the other the lurking Inland 
Revenue clerk, the bearer of ' authorized arms ' might go by 
in safety, secure with his official talismans of emblazoned 
parchment and receipted bill, but from the bearer of arms 
* unauthorized by the College ' such yearly taxes should be 
squeezed that for very economy he should implore ' authoriza- 
tion ' from Garter and his fellows with tears and cheques. 

Other amendments of the law will suggest themselves 
even to those who refuse to share this beautiful dream of a 
bettered world. The tax upon armorial bearings borne upon 
carriages is reasonable enough. Respectability has been de- 
fined in a court of law {R. v. 'Thurtell) as the keeping of a gig^ 
and when armorial bearings have been added to its panels, the 
gig may weU stand for material prosperity. That the pros- 
perous classes should pay our taxes is a financial ideal to 
nineteen out of twenty Englishmen, and as an initial or a 
badge might be used upon a carriage without loss of dignity 
the man who will pay for the retention of his painted lions 
and griffiDns is presumably one able to affi3rd that so necessary 
thing the superfluity. For him the two guinea tax might be 
five guineas with little injury to the taxed one and some aid 
to us others in paying our war bill. 

But the one guinea tax upon armorial bearings ' otherwise 
worn or displayed ' is another matter. Here we have a tax 



stupid and vexatious. First of all it is partial in its applica- 
tion. No reasonable measures are taken to ensure its due 
collection, and whilst inflicting in many cases needless annoy- 
ance the return from it can hardly justify the expenses of the 
department having charge of it. When, we may ask, are 
armorial bearings ' worn and displayed ' ? The silken coat 
embroidered with arms is kept off the military parade by his 
Majesty's regulations concerning uniform, and even if it were 
not so the most imaginative Boer could hardly hope to be 
allowed such a mark for a peep-sight as would be afforded by 
a captain shepherding his company in a coat of gules with a 
silver eagle placed, as our learned heralds would say, ' in bulls- 
eye point.' In civil life the coat of arms is unfamiliar 
wear for Bond Street, and the banner has gone. Private 
banners in war would seem to be forbidden by the act of 
Henry VII. although a pennon of arms is recorded as having 
fluttered over the South African tent of an officer curious in 
such matters. But amongst all the Houndsditch bunting 
which lately decorated London rejoicing no personal ensign 
showed. The London palaces of our nobles, old or new, 
flew the flag of the merchant marine, the banner of King 
George IV. or the warning signal of Yellow Jack, but the 
Percy lion and the Gliickstein lifeboat took no part in the 

Arms upon houses are rare in London. A row of 
villas near Tooting Common bears, it is true, a coat of arms, 
apparently of the builder's designing, upon each gable, and 
the houses with which Messrs. Ernest George and Peto have 
done something for the beautifying of Kensington make some 
play with armorial tympana to their doorways. These, for 
the most part, with arms which, although they have afforded 
somewhat perplexing work for the decorative carver, are of 
the class held blameless by Mr. X, recent purchases which are 
not without their historical interest, suggesting as they do to 
the passing antiquary that the proud houses represented by 
them had their rise in Collingham Gardens in the more re- 
mote eighteen eighties. There is too the palace upon the 
Embankment with its gilded caravel for a vane, within whose 
splendid walls it is believed that our fellow citizen Mr. 
Astor administers his great estate. The tax which Mr. 
Astor should render to the revenue for displaying over his 
front door the arms of the extinct family of the Counts of 


Astorg might well be decided upon by a committee upon 
which Mr. Horace Round should sit with the editor of the 
New York Journal and the head of the house of Montmorenci- 
Rohan-Noailles de Kergournadec. 

Blazons over doors, then, yield little to the Exchequer ; 
tabards of arms are not and banners are put aside for ever. 
In what other ways do we ' wear or otherwise display ' our 
arms. Some of us have seal rings, although the bezel of 
many rings is a virgin one, but notwithstanding the fact that 
the gummed line of our envelopes has deteriorated until the 
envelope opens itself in the postbag we are too lazy for that 
delightful ceremonial the middle aged can well recall — the 
lighting of the wax taper, the splash and stirring of the seal- 
ing wax, the deft impression of the seal. So does the tax 
resolve itself into a petty inquisition of the revenue office to 
ascertain whether the mazy lines of our ^ symbolist ' book- 
plates conceal something of heraldry, or whether the fancy 
stationer has sent home our half-ream of notepaper with a 
demi-lion rampant in the left hand top corner or with merely 
' The Laburnums ' in old English lettering. 

Of what may constitute the wearing or displaying of arms 
we have no word of warning from the Inland Revenue Office. 
There is a legend, and probably a true one, that an unfortunate 
Scot in London was caught by the department in the act of 
using a brass seal which yielded an impression of a thistle 
with ' Dinna Forget ' on a scroll below it, and although a 
thistle does not by itself constitute an ' armorial bearing,' nor 
is the saying of ' Dinna Forget ' an accessory thereof, a dread- 
ful banging of saxpences followed the capture. In August of 
this year the newspapers chronicled the summoning of a 
clergyman who was charged with carrying upon his person 
a silver sovereign purse of the value of five shillings, the face 
of which showed that it had once been engraved with a 'crest.* 
It would seem that for quiet possession of this precious object 
its owner had paid a guinea yearly to the revenue, but, 
pleading that the engraving was now faint and rubbed, he 
ceased to pay his impost. The case was adjourned for a 
second hearing, and we may well ask why the time of com- 
missioners, magistrates, clerks and solicitors should be occu- 
pied by such a tuppenny dispute. It has, we believe, been 
urged by the Inland Revenue Department that the mere pos- 
session of furniture, glass, plate or other objects with armorial 



bearings constitutes a use of them, in which case the impost, 
if it were generally and fearlessly demanded, would rise to 
the proportions of a guinea poll-tax. For which of us from 
those of the middling sort upward but has some object bear- 
ing arms in his custody, for the Inland Revenue, be it noted, 
does not enter into the question of whether the arms are 
yours or your uncle's or your butler's. In cases where the 
arms are a man's own, the arms of his house and line, the 
hardship may often be greater. Let a china basin remain to 
you of some eighteenth century service with your great- 
grandfather's arms painted on it in the colours of Nankin. 
Break it you must, or sell it, or, it may be, bury it, for if 
your wife fills it with marigolds you are using armorial bear- 
ings and are taxable. The few odd family teaspoons with a 
crest upon them make you liable to a tax if you stir your tea 
with them, and your father's ring, although his father wore it 
and that one's father before him, must be locked up or parted 
with if you cannot spare a yearly guinea for its use. The 
case of the sovereign purse shows that no trumpery is too 
remote for the perquisition, and the three mean little seven- 
and-sixpenny wall shields of your school and college and of 
what the stationer in the High assured you were your arms 
must come down from your walls with all their recollections 
if you are curate, or what not, with no guineas to spare. 

With all this no protection is given to the arms paid 
for. A trade mark pays, but it is registered and protected. 
Here it is otherwise. You may in the privacy of your heart 
nourish a harmless pride that you are not as other men in 
that you are last survivor of a line which flew a square banner 
at Agincourt, but if you carry that banner's golden hedgehog 
or green griffon on an old seal for the possession of which 
you have paid no tax, you will be fined, and fined smartly, 
whilst your new-rich neighbour, who on the strength of a 
remote resemblance of surname has powdered house, carriage 
and plate with the arms which belong in honour and right 
to you alone, pays his two guineas and is law free. And these 
things cannot be otherwise, for there is nobody in the land 
which is competent to pronounce with authority upon such 
questions of right in armorial bearings — neither the Commis- 
sioners of Inland Revenue nor the officers of the institution 
with which Mr. X. would have them hunt in couples. 

Stupid, partial and meddlesome, here is surely one of the 


taxes which might follow the window tax to the lumber-room 
of the Exchequer. New and more suitable objects of tax- 
ation can surely be found than the little things which remind 
many a small middle-class family of other times and days. 

And buzzing under our window as we write we hear and 
smell a fifteen hundred guinea motor car. It has no armorial 
bearings upon its panels, indeed it does not seem to have any 
panels, and yet — 

O. B. 




A NOTION seems to have got abroad that the modern 
school of genealogists — or one section of it — is bent 
solely upon destruction for its own sake ; that a form of 
antiquarian nihilism is prevalent which rages frantically 
against the most venerable and glorious of English tradi- 
tions and gloats over and revels in its unholy work. It is 
not for me to champion the cause of the gentlemen who are 
so maligned or misunderstood. They are fully capable of 
taking care of themselves. But it may not be amiss if I try 
to state how it comes to pass that so many students of 
genealogy are disposed to insist on their having fair play. 

Persons who are really jealous for the honour of an in- 
stitution or an ideal are those who most strongly object to 
its degradation, whether that degradation be brought about 
by a lowering of the standard or by a substituting of a mere 
imitation for the genuine thing. A simple illustration will 
suffice to make this clear. His Majesty the King has recently 
created an Order of Merit. To this order twelve distinguished 
persons have been admitted. Whether they are the most dis- 
tinguished Englishmen alive is not the question. It is indis- 
putable that they are great and distinguished, and that, in their 
several departments, they are representative of the greatness 
of the empire. This fact is, of itself, sufficient to invest the 
order with that characteristic excellence which men are prone 
to reverence. It is certain, moreover, that the reverence for 
the order will vary inversely with the number of members 
admitted into it. It is this very character of exclusiveness 
which will cause men to regard it as an honourable distinction 
to belong to the order. The like holds good in the depart- 
ment of genealogy. There are certain families who represent 
the ancient aristocracy of this country. They are compara- 
tively few in number. They may have been, like Sir George 
Sitwell's English gentleman, the mere products originally of 
circumstances and conditions by which they profited and over 
which they triumphed. The precise elements which entered 
into their composition at the very first and which secured for 
them a foremost place in bygone ages may not now appear to 


US to be qualities which entitle them to rank with those who 
constitute the King*s Order of Merit. It is too probable that, 
like man's conscience, which ethical teachers tells us is the 
mere result of an evolutionary process by which the baser and 
more selfish elements are transmuted into the noblest of man's 
attributes, they profited by endowments of mind and of body 
and by methods and artifices which they — many of them — 
neither now possess nor would care to employ. Whatever 
their origin they stand for us to-day as the representatives of 
the ancient aristocracy of England. (I use the term aristocracy 
rather than nobility or gentry because many are now noble 
who can never be said to have been gentle and many are 
gentle who have never been ennobled.) Of this ancient 
aristocracy certain existing families are clearly representative 
and certain families are commonly supposed to be representa- 
tive and are not. The critical school of genealogists, the 
nihilists, are anxious to differentiate the latter class from the 
former. They have no desire to depreciate the many ex- 
cellent qualities of the latter class or to deny them the title 
of noble in its amplest modern signification, but they refuse 
to admit claims which are invalid or which cannot be substan- 
tiated historically. Their interests and aims are conservative 
in the truest sense : their nihilism is only towards things 
spurious and concocted. They feel that the only way of 
preserving what remains of ancient lineage and of the prestige 
which comes of it is by distinguishing clearly between what 
is ancient and what is modern, and also that the only way ot 
securing respect for family history, as such, is by being strictly 
honest in dealing with it. They repudiate utterly the annexe 
to the ancient Abbey of St. Peter, and prefer real red baize and 
bunting to the hateful imitation of lath and plaster which is 
intended to deceive the eye of the uninitiated. 

With this rather discursive and prolix introduction — for 
which I crave the editor's indulgence — I proceed to the sub- 
ject of my article. My purpose is to discuss the genesis of a 
genealogical myth, not retrospectively but proleptically. If my 
treatment of it should be such as to compel others to prove 
that my myth is no myth at all, but a real, substantial, verifi- 
able fact, or should show it to be a thing of so tenuious a con- 
sistency as not even to merit the name of myth, I shall be 
equally well satisfied. 

Two newspapers, one of them a London daily and the 


other a leading provincial daily, have with characteristic 
temerity set about providing the famous general and ex- 
sirdar of Egypt — Sir Francis Grenfell — who has recently 
been rewarded with a peerage, with an ancestry which cer- 
tainly leaves nothing to be desired in the way of splendour 
or of antiquity. The lineage imputed to the new peer is 
none other than that of direct descent from the great Norman 
house of Granville, and of collateral relationship with famous 
Sir Richard Grenville of the Revenge and with his famous 
grandson Sir Bevill, who fell at Lansdown fighting for the 
king. The London daily is very explicit. The family of 
the ex-sirdar (so it states) is identical with that of Grenville 
and Granville. The provincial paper, over the initials R. G., 
states the same thing, though with somewhat less confidence, 
and gives a number of details which lend colour to the sup- 
position. The former refers to a statement of Dr. Borlase, 
the Cornish historian, in support of its statement ; R. G., with 
more cogency, refers to the registers of St. Just-in-Penwith, 
from which parish it is admitted the family of Lord Grenfell 
sprang, and to certain considerations which will be dealt with 
in due course. 

It becomes necessary therefore to examine the testimony 
of Dr. Borlase, which, as that of a vicar of St. Just from 1732 
to 1772 and of one who devoted the best years of his life to 
the study of antiquities, ought to be valuable. What Dr. 
Borlase says, speaking of Kalynack, the antient Domesday 
manor of Chellenoch, is this : ' It belonged in the last 
generation, as I have been informed by Mr. Allen this 
6th June 1762, to Grenville of Stow, Earl of Bath ; and 
by remains of a like name common in the parish, written 
Grinfield, Grenfield and Grenfell in the parish register, it is 
probable that a branch of the family settled in the parish.' 
Dr. Borlase's statement is quite unexceptionable both in its 
caution and in its candour. Every one will agree with him 
that Grenfell may be the same name as Grenville or Granville. 
William Grenville, Archbishop of York, appears in the Patent 
Rolls and other records almost invariably as William de 
Grenefeld, so there need be no cavilling over the name, 
although in passing one may be permitted to observe that 
ceteris paribus Greenfield or its equivalent is equally pro- 
bable as the original form of it. Dr. Borlase's testimony 
therefore amounts to no more than this, that Mr. Allen, who 


at that time lived at Bossavern, which formed part of Kalynack 
manor, said that the manor belonged to Grenville, Earl of 
Bath, some thirty or forty years before the statement was made. 

As is well known, the Grenville Earls of Bath were three 
in number, viz. John, Charles and William Henry, and they 
held the Bath peerage from 1661 to 1711, but there is not a 
tittle of evidence adduced so far to show that they were ever 
lords of Kalinack manor. R. G. states that it passed from the 
Hankfords to the St. Legers and from the St. Legers to the 
Grenvilles. This assumption is purely gratuitous. If R. G.'s 
surmise be correct, the manor would have been with the St. 
Legers in 1509-23, i.e. at the unspecified date of King 
Henry's first lay subsidy ; whereas what we actually dis- 
cover from the subsidy roll is that towards that subsidy 
' John Fitzwaryn Kl, Lora Fitzwaryn ' paid for the lands of 
that manor the sum of iGs. 6d, This Lord Fitzwarine 
(John Bourchier) was created Earl of Bath in the year 1536. 
Hitherto I have been unable to discover a single Grenfell or 
Grenville in the subsidy rolls relating to St. Just parish. The 
manor of Kalinack, on the death of the sixth Fulke, Lord 
Fitzwarine, passed to his daughter Elizabeth, who married 
Sir Richard Hankford, and thence by the marriage of their 
daughter Thom^asine to Sir William Bourchier, who was 
summoned to Parliament in 1448-9 as Lord Fitzwarine. 
This Sir William Bourchier was the grandfather of John 
Bourchier who contributed to the subsidy referred to, and 
who was the first Earl of Bath. His descendants. Earls of 
Bath, continued to hold the manor until 1654, when the 
family became extinct in the male line. 

It seems certain therefore that either Mr. Allen was ignor- 
ant of the earlier Earls of Bath, and erred through ignorance, 
or that he was misinformed. His error was such as any one 
not versed in family history might be guilty of, when we 
remember that it was only seven years after the extinction of 
the first earldom that the second was created, that the second 
earldom only remained with the Grenvilles half a century, 
and that rather more than half a century had elapsed since 
its final extinction when the communication was made to 
Dr. Borlase. For these reasons Mr. Allen's statement may 
be passed over. But why do R. G. and the London news- 
paper insist upon the possession of Kalynack manor by the 
Grenvilles } Simply because, assuming it to be a fact, it will 



serve to account for the presence of the Grenfells at St. Just. 
No evidence of Grenville ownership being forthcoming, the 
only vestige of evidence in favour the Grenville-Grenfell 
relationship is swept away. 

It is interesting, however, to observe how Borlase's 
guarded statement is paraphrased by the London paper. 
' Borlase,' so it tells us, ' observes that the Grenfells had a 
seat at the Lands End.' Of course Borlase says nothing of 
the kind ; but, if the Grenfells had ever had a seat in this 
neighbourhood, there would surely be some trace of it in 
the records relating thereto. So far from this being so, there 
is not a single Grenfell will or administration either at 
Bodmin or in the Principal Registry at Exeter prior to the 
year 1724, when Richard Grenfell' s will was proved at 
Bodmin. There are no Grenfell wills at Somerset House 
until after 1603. I have not examined the kalendars subse- 
quent to that date. It is simply inconceivable that a family, 
possessed of a family seat, should have left no trace whatever 
of departed greatness. The first mention of them — apart 
from the parish register, which I will consider presently — is 
in the will of John Bossavern of Bossavern — one of the last 
members of a family long extinct — dated May 20, 1629. In 
this will the testator bequeaths to Mary the wife of Glyn 
Veale ' all that debt that Isaack GlanfiU oweth me if she can 
get it from the said Isaack.' He had previously bequeathed 
twenty shillings to each of Glyn Veale's three daughters ; so 
there is no reason to suppose that ' all that debt ' was any- 
thing more than a comparatively small sum of money. 
There is nothing in the parish registers to indicate a social 
position superior to that of others, with perhaps one solitary 
entry which records the marriage of Hercules Glanfield in 
1 63 1 to Jane Busvargus. The family of Busvargus is 
amongst those given in the Visitation of 1620, but I have 
been unable to identify Jane. Of the remaining 629 entries 
which are to be found between the years 1599 and 1862 
there is not one which the registrar has dignified with the 
title of Mr. or gentleman. 

Mr. Buller, vicar of St. Just from 1827 to 1846, in his 
charming little history of St. Just, gives a facsimile of a 
document containing the list, with the signatures, of those 
who swore to be true and faithful to his Highness the Lord 
Protector 'Against forraigne invadors and dysturbers of the 


Peace of this nation,* dated May i, 1658. Amongst those 
who signed is to be found Pasko Grenfield, the ancestor of 
Lord Grenfell. 

Those who are conversant with the history of the great 
rebellion do not need to be reminded of the inconsistencies 
which characterized the political careers of members of the 
same family, but it is nevertheless startling to find a claim 
advanced on behalt of Pasko Grenfell, the staunch supporter 
of Cromwell, of relationship to Sir Bevill Grenville, who, but 
fifteen years before, had laid down his life for King Charles, 
and to Sir Richard his brother, whose proud boast it was 
eleven years later, i.e. only four years before his supposed 
relative signed the declaration, that all his ancestors since the 
Conquest of England were ever 'constantly for services of 
the crown of England.' Of Pasko Grenfield's parentage 
nothing is certainly known, owing to the loss of the St. Just 
record of baptisms prior to 1630. He married Juliana, 
daughter of John Oates of St. Just, by whom he became 
the father of John Grenfield. John Grenfield married Rachel 
Tregear, and was the father of four children who survived 
him, viz. Paskow, Mary, Juliana and John. Paskow the 
second married (i) Mary Edwards, whose parents were of 
good condition at St. Just, but who died without issue ; and 
(2) at St. Hilary, Mary, the daughter of John Morgham of 
Marazion, merchant. This Paskow or Pascoe Grenfell was a 
successful merchant at Penzance, and the founder of the 
fortunes of the Grenfell family. From the time that they 
left St. Just the Grenfells have thriven wonderfully. They 
have been members of Parliament, and gained distinction 
both in the army and in the navy. They have intermarried 
with the noblest families, and have been widely known as 
financiers and philanthropists. They have rowed in the 
University boat, and have enjoyed the sunshine of royal 
favour. There is scarcely any department of public or of 
private life wherein they have not been honourably dis- 
tinguished. That the claim to Norman descent should have 
been put forward is much to be regretted, especially as one 
can hardly believe that it is done with their approval. 

There are still one or two points which deserve notice. 
Descendants of Paskow Grenfell the first survive at St. Just, 
but they continue to occupy much the same position as their 
republican ancestor occupied in the seventeenth century. 


The local representative still rejoices in the name of Pascoe, 
as did his father and great grandfather before him. Only 
those who have worked upon descents which are problem- 
atical can understand the difficulty of articulating the various 
members of a pedigree when parochial records are unsup- 
ported — as in the case before us — by wills, administrations 
and inquisitions mortem. In this case there is no difficulty 
however when once we come to Paskow the first. His son's 
marriage to Rachel Tregear would never have been known 
but for the Bodmin transcript, for the St. Just register is 
defective between 1677 and 1682 — -an instance which may 
serve to illustrate the value of the bishops' transcripts. The 
marriage entry of Pascoe Grenfell and Mary Maugham 
at St. Hilary is interesting, the father being described of 
' St. Just in the West.' 

I had intended to pass over R. G.'s disquisition upon 
Christian names. It is so curious however that a word may 
be added. After confessing his inability to discover the 
missing Grenville-Grenfill link, he refers to the prevalence of 
Nicholas as a Christian name amongst the Grenfells. He 
observes that Nicholas was a common Christian name 
amongst the Cavells, and concludes that 'it is therefore 
possible that the Grenfells were descended from Digory 
Grenville, third son of Sir Roger Grenville of Stow, whose 
second wife (married about 1540) was Mary, daughter of 
Nicholas Cavell of St. Kew. Now the first Nicholas Grenfell 
who appears at St. Just is Nicholas the son of Edmund and 
Cheston Grenfell, who was baptized in 1676, i.e. 136 years 
after the Grenville-Cavell marriage. Fancy being pursued 
by the name of Nicholas — old Nick himself might do this 
perhaps — for 136 years, and then finally consenting to bestow 
that not altogether uncommon name upon your unhappy 
son ! This juggling with names is only one out of many 
instances which could be given of the fatuous attempts which 
are made to manufacture evidence where none exists. If 
the myth of a Grenville descent could be shown to be 
something worthy of a better name, no one would welcome 
the evidence more gladly than the present writer ; but until 
that evidence is forthcoming he feels compelled to regard it as 
a myth in embryo, which he trusts will never arrive at a fur- 
ther stage of development. 




SIDE by side with such Huguenot families as the Tryons, 
rich merchants whose necks and money bags were alike 
endangered by their profession of ' the religion ' — came other 
emigrants fleeing a more imminent danger. These were the 
ministers of the reformed Churches, of whom many took 
refuge in England with their families, soon Englishing them- 
selves in speech and habit, and adding a new note to that 
chorus of religious controversy which was as the breath of 
the nostrils to English scholars of the sixteenth and seven- 
teenth century. Of such were the Barons, a family for four 
generations settled in Cambridge, Lincolnshire and Norfolk. 

Pierre Baron, or Petrus Baro, as he wrote himself after 
the fashion of the continental theologians of his day, the 
founder of this family in England, was a scholar and divine 
of some note in his day ; for this foreign graft in the English 
Church may claim ancestorship of the great High Church 
party of the seventeenth century, whose service to England 
was to save her from the claws of Calvinism. 

From a collection of family papers which Cole the anti- 
quary transcribed from a MS. under the hand of Thomas 
Baker we learn much of the early history of the famous 
Petrus.^ He was the son of Estienne Baron of Etampes near 
Orleans, by Philippe Petit his wife, and was one of many 
children of whom the names are preserved of Jehan Baron 
and Florent Baron, both apparently elder brothers of Pierre. 
The family seems to have been one of the rich bourgeoisie or 
petite noblesse. Peter Baron, who was possibly a nephew of 
our theologian, is remarkable as having at a great age de- 
fended Etampes during a siege, to which siege he himself 
gave that measure of immortality which a long epic poem in 
Latin — Stempanum Halosis — can assure. With Pierre Baron 
the theologian let our genealogy begin. 

I. Pierre Baron, born about 1534 at Etampes, was bred 

^ British Museum Add. MS. 5832. 



a scholar, taking his degrees of bachelor and licentiate ot civil 
law at Bourges,^ which town was then the headquarters of the 
reformed doctrine in France. In 1557 he was received as 
an advocate in the parliament court at Paris. 'Afterwards, 
being aged 26 years, the year and month in which Francis II. 
King of France, died at Orleans, that is to say the year 1560, 
in December, he withdrew himself to Geneva and there, 
having given himself to the study of theology, was made 
minister and received the imposition of hands from Jean 
Calvin' [Coles MS.]. At some date between the 17 May 
and 7 June 1563 he was married at Gien on the Loire 
to Guillemette Burgoin daughter of Estienne Burgoin, 
a merchant, by Lopza Dozival his wife. Her brothers, 
Francois Burgoin and Antoine Burgoin, are named amongst 
the godparents of their sister's children. Coming to Eng- 
land with his family he was befriended by the Lord Burghley, 
who was at that time Chancellor of the University of Cam- 
bridge. Cambridge received the foreign scholar under its 
Chancellor's protection, and on 3 Feb. I57|- he was incor- 
porated in those degrees in law which he had taken at 
Bourges. In 1576 he received the degree of Doctor of 
Divinity, and on 1 1 July of that year he was incorporated 
in the same degree at Oxford. On the 18 March 157! his 
university recommended his case to the Secretaries of State, 
and he was preferred to the Lady Margaret Professorship of 
Hebrew. The active mind of Baron did not long allow itself 
to enjoy its newly gotten freedom in quiet content. His 
earlier experiences of Calvinism, coloured as they were by 
personal knowledge of both Calvin and Beza, had turned the 
bent of his mind against that system which was then in 
Baron's early days at Cambridge so eagerly studied by his 
fellows. In 1 58 1 he was already reckoned as one inclined 
to Arminianism, and was indeed suspect of another heresy — 
the loathed doctrine of tolerance for the religious beliefs of 
others, a tolerance which Dr. Baron would have extended, as 
it was believed, to the beliefs of those who had hunted him 
from his native land. His sallies into controversy was very 
ill received by his adopted countrymen, and he was soon 
risking that Tudor wrath which might readily have proved as 
unwholesome for a theologian as the zeal of any inquisitor. 
In December of 1595 Whitgift wrote that Dr. Baro had 

1 9 and 10 April, 1555 (Cok's MS.). 


greatly offended her Majesty ' that he, being a stranger and so 
well used, should dare to stir up or maintain any controversy 
in that place of what nature soever — Non decet hominem pere- 
grinum curios urn esse in aliena republica' ^ 

The plain words of warning came too late to save Doctor 
Baro at Cambridge. On 12 Jan. 159! he preached before the 
University at Great St. Mary's, criticizing those Lambeth 
Articles which Whitaker, Tyndal and Whitgift had drawn 
up for the repression of anti-Calvinism. It was in vain for 
Doctor Baro to protest that he formally accepted those articles, 
for the controversialist allowed himself to explain his construc- 
tion of them. In the November of 1596 his term as Lady 
Margaret Professor ended and it was not renewed, although 
he offered, if re-elected, to be cautious in his words concerning 
predestination, or, better still, to leave that vexed question 
alone for the future. To the High Calvinist this refusal of 
battle at the crossways had something in it of insult. 
Calvinism would not accept toleration, and although Burghley 
stood by Dr. Baro, and Harsnet, the northern archbishop, 
and Lancelot Andrewes, Cambridge would not hold the ex- 
Lady Margaret Professor. ' Fugioy he said, ^ ne fugarer^ and 
for the second time in his life Doctor Baro fled the storm. 
The rest of his years were spent in London at a house in Dyers 
Yard, Crutched Friars, in the parish of St.Olave's in Hart Street. 
There under the altar of the parish church he was buried, 
Bancroft the Bishop of London commanding the attendance 
of all his parish clergy at the funeral, at which Doctors of 
Divinity walked as pall-bearers. Twenty years later all the 
best bishoprics and deaneries were filled by the supporters of 
those tenets for which Dr. Petrus Baro had been hunted from 

He left a will dated in March 1598, written in the Latin 
which was for a mother tongue to the wandering scholars and 
divines of his day. Petrus Baro — he describes himself therein 
— -juris primum civilis licentiatus deinde theologie professor^ Gallus 
Stempanus — a Frenchman of Etampes — nunc Londini in Anglia 
degens^ annos natus sexaginta quatuor^ et bona nihilominus jirma 
memoria judicioque dei gracia sano. By this will he gave ten 
shillings to Margaret, formerly his maid, who lived at Cam- 
bridge. He gave to his two twin daughters, Elizabeth and 
Katherine, 100/. each if they were unmarried at his death. 

1 Whitgift' s Works y iii. 617. 



The residue of his goods in England or in France he gave 
amongst his children Peter, Andrew, Martha, Mary, Eliza- 
beth and Katherine. He made his sons Peter and Andrew 
his executors, who proved the will 27 April 1599 [P. C.C. 28 

By his wife Guillemette Burgoin, who died before him, 
Petrus Baro left issue : — 

i. Peter Baron of Boston in Lincolnshire, esquire, of whom 


ii. Estienne Baron, born at Orleans 4 Nov. 1567, and 

christened there the same day. He died 4 Feb. 1568. 

iii. Estienne Baron, born at Sancerre 10 Oct. 1568. He 

was christened the same day and died on the morrow. 

iv. Andrew Baron of Boston in Lincolnshire, gentleman. 

He was born at Cambridge 8 July 1574, and was 
christened there the following Sunday. He was 
buried at Boston 25 May 1658. His will is dated 
I August 1653. He gave to Andrew Slee (his 
grandson) all his lands and tenements, save his house 
in Gaunt Lane, with remainder, should the said 
Andrew die without issue to George Slee (another 
grandchild), with certain exceptions in favour or 
Hester Slee (another grandchild) and Mary Slee. To 
his daughter Mary Houbelon, if a widow, he gave 
the dwelling house dwelled in by Master Bedford. 
To his nephew Doctor (Samuel) Baron, to Mary 
Houblon, to Anne Slee and to Margaret Slee he gave 
small legacies in money, and the residue of his goods, 
with the house in Gaunt Lane, which was probably 
his own dwelling house, he gave to his son (in law) 
George Slee. Administration with this will annexed 
was granted 29 Nov. 1658 [P. C.C. 614 Wootton\ to 
the said George Slee, the residuary legatee. 

Andrew Baron's wife's name was Hester. She was 
buried at Boston i April 1639. By her he had 
issue : — 

I. Hester Baron, who was married at Boston 
25 Sep. 1628 to George Slee of Boston and 
Algarkirk, gent. He was born about 1607, 
being aged 33 in 15 Car. L, when he was a 
deponent in the suit which Peter Baron (his 
wife's first cousin once removed) brought 


by his guardian against Newdigate Poyntz 
and others [Chan, pro, before 17 14, Mitford 
599]. Hester Slee was buried at Boston 
17 August 1637. George Slee remarried 
with Mary (probably dau. of Daniel Hoube- 
lon, who was buried at Boston 2 Jan. i6ff). 
She was buried at Boston 15 August 1662. 
The will of George Slee of Algarkirk was 
dated 4 Nov. 1675, proved 2 May 

1677 [Cons, Line.'] by his son Andrew Slee, 
the exor. George Slee had issue (i) Andrew 
Slee of Boston, esquire, M.D., who married 
about Feb. 1658, Joan Smith, daughter of 
Edward Smith of the city of Lincoln, gent., 
who died before him and was buried at 
Boston 5 Nov. 1660, leaving issue by both 
her husbands. On 5 May 1666 Andrew 
Slee answered the Chancery bill set forward 
by the guardian of Samuel Baron of Horn- 
castle, son of the said Joan [Cban. pro, before 
1 7 14, Collins 30]. Andrew Slee made a will 
31 May 1678, which was proved 2 Aug. 

1678 [Cons, Line] by Israel Jackson, John 
Boult, Samuel Hutchinson and Richard 
Palfreyman, gentlemen, the exors. (2) George 
Slee of Boston, gentleman, born about 1633, 
whose will was dated 20 Nov. 28 Car. II., 
admon. with the will being granted 13 Feb. 
1676 to his brother Andrew, uncle and 
guardian of Meriam and Elizabeth the chil- 
dren, whose mother Frances was dead with- 
out proving the will in which she had been 
named as extrix. The said Frances, born 
about 1646, was daughter of one Pepper of 
Boston, and was married with her mother's 
consent to George Slee by license from the 
Bishop of Lincoln, dated 11 March i66|-. 
(3) Hester Slee, named in her father's will 
as wife of Mr. Thomas Stowe. (4) Mary 
Slee, named in her father's will as wife of 
Henry Calverley, by whom she had issue. 
And (5) Elizabeth Slee (evidently a daugh- 


I lO 


ter by the second marriage), to whom her 
father gave ' the pictures of her grandfather 
Houbelon and grandmothers, with that of 
her uncle Houbelon and her mother's.' 

II. Mary Baron, who was christened at Boston 
1 9 March 1 6of . ' Mary Baron, daughter 
of Andrew Baron, gent.,' was buried at Bos- 
ton 7 March 163I-. But in his will of 1653 
Andrew Baron bequeathed a house to his 
' daughter Mary Houbelon, if she be a 
widow.' The position of this second Mary 
in the pedigrees of Baron and Houblon has 
not yet been ascertained. 

III. Hester Baron, christened at Boston 20 March, 
1 6 if. She probably died young. 
(id.) Martha Baron, eldest daughter of Peter and Guille- 

mette Baron. She was born at Orleans i June 


(iiD.) Marie Baron, born at Sancerre 26 May [1570 i^]. 
(iiiD.) Elizabeth Baron, born at Cambridge 24 Aug. 1577, 
and christened there the Tuesday following. She 
married John Lockton of Boston, gent., by license 
from the Bishop of Lincoln, dated 28 May 1600. 
He was son of Philip Lockton, a son of Lockton 
of Swinstead, and left issue by his wife. 
(ivD.) Catharine Baron, born 24 Aug. 1577, twin with 
Elizabeth. She married Peter Vandeleur or Van 
der Leur of Boston, a refugee from Ghent in 
Flanders, by whom she had issue. He was buried 
at Boston 24 Sep. 1638. 
IL Peter Baron of Boston in Lincolnshire, esquire, was 
born at Orleans 15 Jan. 1567-, and coming to England with 
his father was naturalized by statute of 4 Jac. L The register 
of Peterhouse at Cambridge for 1585 records that he was 
^ admissus coram sociis,' he signing the register with his own 
hand, per me Petrum Baro Aureliensem. He was a doctor of 
medicine, and under the Cecil influence was made free of 
Boston 25 Oct. 1606, becoming alderman in 1609 and mayor 
in 1 6 10. The author of The Way of Congregational Churches 
Cleared (ed. London, 1648) thus speaks of him : — 

When I was first called to Boston in Lincolnshire [161 2] so it 
was that Mr. Doctor Baron, son of that Doctor Baron (the Divinity 


Reader at Cambridge, who in his lectures there first broached that 
which was then called Lutheranism, since Arminianism). This Doctor 
Baron, I say, had leavened many of the chief men of the town with 
Arminianism, as being himself learned, acute, plausible in discourse, 
and fit to insinuate into the hearts of his neighbours. And though 
he was a physician by profession (and of good skill in that art) yet he 
spent the greatest strength of his studies in clearing and promoting 
the Arminian tenets. 

He lived in a mansion house, formerly of the Wesdands, 
which stood between the east end of Beadman's Lane and 
Spain Lane in Boston, which was afterwards held by his great 
nephew Andrew Slee. He died 6 Sep. 1630 and was buried 
at Boston 7 Sep. 1630, the entry in the register describing 
him as a justice of the peace and doctor of physic. By in- 
quest post mortem taken at Boston 2 July 8 Car. L it was 
returned that he died seised of lands in Conisby, Sibsey, 
Skirbecke, Wyberton, Kirton, Moulton and Leake. He 
made a will 31 May 1628 describing himself therein as 
' Peter Baron alias Baro of Boston in the county of Lincoln 
esquier and doctor of Phisick,' the only legatees being his 
elder son Peter Baron, who had lately married Martha Forrest, 
daughter of Myles Forrest of Peterborough, esquire, and his 
younger son Samuel Baron. The testator's wife Mary was 
then lately dead. The will was proved 22 Feb. 163-?- [P.C.C. 
25 St, John] by Peter Baron the son and exor. Admon. d.b.n. 
was granted 29 Dec. 1664 to Samuel Baron, brother of the 
exor., who was then also dead. Peter Baron married Mary, 
who is described in the Heralds' Visitation of Norfolk in 
1664 as a daughter of De la Fontaine of Antwerp. She died 
in April, 1628, and was buried at Boston 26 April 1628. 

Peter Baron and Mary de la Fontaine had issue : — 

i. Peter Baron of Boston, esquire, of whom hereafter. 

ii. Samuel Baron of South Lynn in Norfolk, gent. As 

' Samuel Baron Lincolinensem ' he was admitted to 
Peterhouse in Cambridge. Like his father he was a 
Doctor of Physick and settled at South Lynn in 
Norfolk, where his father had owned a house. He 
died 12 April 1673, and was buried 15 Ap. 1673 at 
South Lynn as ' Samuel Baron esquire.' A marble 
stone at the foot of the altar in All Saints' Church in 
South Lynn marked his grave. He made a will 10 
Aug. 1 67 1, with a codicil dated 24 Jan. 167!, which 
was proved 26 May 1673 [P.C.C. 55 Pye] by Andrew 


Baron the son and exor. He gave his lease of the 
rectory of Sharnborne, co. Norfolk, to his daughter 
Martha Baron, with 800/. He gave the ultimate 
reversion of his house and lands in South Lynn, and 
in Algarkirk, Fossdyke, Freeston and Butterwick in 
Lincolnshire, with the manor of Roos Hall, to his son 
Andrew Baron. He married 15 Feb. 163T, Frances 
Goddard, the only daughter of Thomas Goddard of 
Stanhow and Rudham in Norfolk, esquire. She died 
19 June 1667, and was buried 21 June 1667, at 
South Lynn, where a marble slab near that of her 
husband marks her grave. Upon it are the arms of 
Baron impaled with an eagle for Goddard. 

Samuel Baron and Frances Goddard had issue — 

1. Samuel Baron, born 10 Dec. 1633, who died 

young before 1664. 

2. Thomas Baron, born i Feb. 164!, who died 

young before 1664. 

3. Peter Baron, born i Jan. 163-^, who died young 

before 1664. 

4. Andrew Baron of South Lynn and Cambridge. 

He was born 18 June 1645, and was re- 
turned as his father's son and heir in the 
Heralds' Visitation of Norfolk in 1664. He 
was of Peterhouse, Cambridge, a bachelor of 
arts 20 May, 16 6-^, and fellow of his college 
24 May 1666, M.A. March i66|-. He died 
14 Aug. 1 71 9, aged 74. His will, dated 
2 Sep. 1709, was proved 6 Oct. 1719 
\Arch, Norwich'] by Samuel Taylor of Lynn, 
merchant, one of the exors. He was buried 
1 7 Aug. 1 7 1 9, at South Lynn as ' Mr. 
Andrew Baron the impropriator,' and lies in 
the chancel near his father and mother under 
a stone bearing the arms of Baron, 

It is probable that the descendants in the 
male line of Petrus Baro ended with this 
Andrew Baron, his great-grandson. 

5. Samuel Baron, born 16 July 1646, dead before 


6. Henry Baron, born on Lammas day 1651, 

dead before 1664. 


ID. Mary Baron. She married at South Lynn, 
29 March 1660, Sir Simon Taylor, knight, 
of Lynn Regis, a rich merchant, twice mayor 
of Lynn and three times sheriff, by whom 
she had issue. He died in 1689, aged 56, 
and was buried at St. Margaret^s in Lynn, 
under a stone bearing the arms of Taylor — 
ermine a chief indented charged with a closed 
crown between two escallop. She is said in the 
MS. account of her family to have been 
born II Aug. 1632, but her tombstone near 
her husband's describes her as born in 1647 
and dead in 1724, aged 77. She is however 
placed in the Heralds' pedigree before her 
sister Frances, who was born in 1635. 

2D. Frances Baron, born 15 Oct. 1635, ^^^^ 
24 Dec. 1666. Buried 26 Dec. 1666 at All 
Saints' in South Lynn, where a stone in the 
chancel with the arms of Prettyman (a lion 
passant between three molets) impaling 
Baron, marks her grave. She married Peter 
Prettyman of South Lynn and of Bacton, co. 
Suffolk, gent., who died 6 October 1705, 
aged 72. Their descendants quartered the 
arms of Baron with Prettyman. 

3D. Hester Baron, born 26 July 1640, who died 

40. Elizabeth Baron, born 7 Oct. 1641, who died 

50. Bridget Baron, born 24 Dec. 1643, who died 

6d. Martha Baron, born 4 Jan. i64|-, and married 
to Humphrey Graves of New Windsor, co. 
Bucks, esquire, a groom of the privy cham- 
ber to Charles II. Their settlement before 
marriage was dated 8 April 1674, as appears 
by the bill which the said Humphrey filed in 
Chancery 27 March 1696, against Andrew 
Baron the brother \Chan, pro. before 17 14, 
Collins 602]. At the time of his marriage 
Humphrey Graves was described as of Put- 
ney, CO. Middlesex, gent. Martha Graves 



died 28 Sep. 1679, buried at New 

Windsor (M. I.). Humphrey Graves died 
7 Sep. 1703, aged 71, and was buried by his 
wife at New Windsor (M. I.). They had 
issue (i) Baron Graves who died 15 Oct. 
1683, aged 9 years, and was buried with his 
parents (M. I.), and (2) Charles Graves, who 
died without issue in 1696, his father being 
his administrator. 
III. Peter Baron of Boston, esquire, was born about 
1595, being described in the allegation for his marriage license 
as about 22. He married in 1617 Martha Forrest, eldest 
daughter of Miles Forrest of Peterborough, co. Northants, 
esquire, by Cicely his wife, sole heir of her mother Margaret 
Sanderson, widow. Miles Forrest was the descendant of a 
certain Miles Forrest who appears as bailiff of Peterborough 
at the time of the dissolution of the monastery, and one may 
at least draw attention to the persistence of the christian 
name of Miles in this family and to the similar christian name 
of one Forrest whose name is coupled with that of Dighton in 
connection with certain services alleged to have been rendered 
King Richard III. in the Bloody Tower. Miles Forrest was 
buried in the cathedral of Peterborough about eight years 
before the death of his relict Cicely, whose wiU dated 20 Sep. 
1 63 1 was proved 29 March 1636 [P.C.C. 32 Pile] by Miles 
Forrest, her son and exor. On the death of Miles Forrest 
the son, who died without issue in 1636, administration d,I?.n, 
was granted 30 Jan. 163^, to Newdigate Poyntz and Anne his 
wife, the survivor of the two sisters of the said Miles the son. 
This administration grant was afterwards revoked by sentence 
and another grant was made to Mary Baron alias Whiting, 
the granddaughter of the said Cicely. By the allegation for 
marriage license, dated 22 August 161 7 (Lincoln), Martha 
Forrest is described as of Skirbeck, and like her husband aged 
about 22 years. She was therefore born about 1595. She 
was buried at Boston 7 Aug. 1632. Her husband re-married 
Joan Smith, daughter of Edward Smith of the city of Lincoln, 
gent., who survived him and re-married in Feb. 1658, with 
Andrew Slee of Boston, M.D., grandson of her first husband^s 
uncle Andrew Baron of Boston. Joan Slee died in the life- 
time of her second husband and was buried at Boston 5 Nov 


By his wife Martha Forrest, Peter Baron had issue : — 

i. Peter Baron, christened at Boston 28 Feb. 16 if. He 

would seem to have died young, 
ii. Peter Baron of Boston, gent., born at Boston and 
christened there 7 July 1622, as 'Peter son of 
Peter Baron, son and heir of Peter Baron, justice of 
the peace.' In 15 Car. I. he brought a suit by his 
guardian against Newdigate Poyntz his uncle, being 
then the sole surviving heir of the bodies of Miles 
and Cicely Forrest, his aunt Anne, wife of the said 
Newdigate, being dead some two years since without 
issue \_Cban, depns. before 17 14, Mitford 599]. He 
died without issue in his father's lifetime, and was 
buried at Boston 19 Sep. 1651.! 

ID. Mary Baron, christened at Boston 9 April, 1620, co- 
heir of her mother. She married (i.) . . . Whiting, 
and (ii.) Bankes Anderson of Boston, co. Lincoln, 
clerk, by whom she had daughters Mary, Elizabeth, 
Deborah and Rebecca (all minors in 1663). On 14 
May 1658, Bankes Anderson and his wife Mary 
set forth a bill in Chancery against Samuel Baron (a 
minor), half brother of the said Mary, and Joan his 
mother. In this bill the said Mary is described as 
co-heir with her sister Elizabeth, wife of George 
Smith (both parties to the beforenamed bill) of 
Peter Baron the younger, late of Boston, esquire, 
and Martha his wife, daughter of Miles Forrest, 
esquire, by Cicely his wife, daughter and heir of her 
mother Margaret Sanderson, widow. Bankes Ander- 
son was buried at Boston 6 Sep. 1668. He left a 
will dated 30 Jan. 1663, under which his wife and 
daughters were legatees. His relict and executrix 
proved the will in the Bishop's Court at Lincoln 
24 November, 1668. 

iiD. Elizabeth Baron, christened at Boston 11 Dec. 1623, 
co-heir of her mother. In 1658 she was wife of 
George Smith of the Firth in Sibsey, co. Lincoln, 
gent., who was buried at Boston 20 Feb. 166^, 

By his wife Joan Smith Peter Baron had issue : — 

ii. Philip Baron, who was buried 19 Nov. 1 651, at Boston. 

iii. Samuel Baron of Horncastle, co. Lincoln, gent., after- 

wards of Boston. He was a minor in 7 Nov. 1664, 



when his bill in Chancery was set forth by Laurence 
Jackson of Alford, gent., his guardian, against 
Andrew Slee, M.D., his stepfather [^Chan, pro. before 
1 7 14, Collins 30], who had married his mother in 
Feb. 1658. Little more is known of Samuel Baron, 
but he may have been the Samuel Baron who was 
buried at Quarrington, co. Lincoln, 18 Dec. 17 15, 
in his 75th year. 
Edward Baron, born 9 Jan. 165I, and buried at Boston 

4 Feb. following. 
Catharine Baron, buried at Boston 12 Oct, 1657. 

Pedigree from the Visitation of Norfolk in 1664 



Peter Baron sive Baro=Guillemette 
descended out of France | Burguin 

Peter Baron of Bo8ton=Mar7, dau. of De la 
com. Lincoln I Fountaine of Antwerp 

Samuel Baron of Lynn Regis in= Frances, dau. of Thomas Gcddard 
Norfolk, Dr. of Physick 1664 of Rudham in com. Norf. 

Andrew sonne 
and heire, aet. 1 8 

Marj ux. 
Sjrm. Tajlor 

Frances ux. 
Petr. Prittiman 


These two pedigrees following of families allied with the 
Barons occur in the Heralds' Visitation of Lincoln in 1634. 


Philip Lockton son of=Jane dau. to 

Robert Lockton 



i. John Lockton= Eliza. Barron 



of Boston, CO. 

dau. of Peter 
Barron, Doc- 
tor of Divini- 
tie and Pro- 
fessor, etc. 

i. Mary wife 
of John 



William Lockton of 
Boston, Sonne and 

Arms : Silver a cheveron between three crescents azure. 




John Vandeleur of=Mar7 dau. of 

Gaunt in Flanders 

Lobell of Lisle 
in Flanders 

Peter Vandeleur= Catherine dau. of Peter Baron 

of Boston, CO. 

Doctor of Divinitie and Pro- 
fessor of the Divinitie in 

- 3 I I I « 

Peter Vanderlure John Samuell Marj Hester 

Customer of Bos- 
ton S634 

Arms ; Gold three molets purple^ with a martlet for difference. 

Arms were granted to Peter Baron of Boston by Camden, 
Clarenceux, the shield being of azure with a decrescent and 
increscent silver— the waning and waxing moons — in the chief 
and a molet gold in the foot. The crest is a dove preying 
upon a serpent. With this coat is quartered another which 
may represent the French shield of the family. This second 
coat — a very curious one — would appear to be gules with a 
hound of silver, his head covered by a chief of gold with a 
label of azure on the chief. 



Under this heading The Ancestor will call the attention oj press 
and public to much curious lore concerning genealogy^ heraldry 
and the like with which our magazines^ our reviews and news- 
papers from time to time delight us. It is a sign of awakening 
interest in such ^natters that the subjects with which The 
Ancestor sets itself to deal are becoming less and less the sealea 
garden of a few workers. But upon what strange food the 
growing appetite for popular archeology must feed wih be 
shown in the columns before us. Our press^ the best-informea 
and the most widely sympathetic in the worlds which watches 
its record of science^ art and literature with a jealous eye^ still 
permits itself^ in this little corner of things^ to be victijnized by 
the 7nost recklessly furnished information^ and it would seem 
that no story is too wildly improbable to find the widest cur- 
rency. It is no criticism for attacking s sake that we shall 
offer ^ and we have but to beg the distinguished journals from 
which we shall draw our texts for comment to take in good- 
part what is offered in good faith and good humour, 

A WEEKLY journal of Court Intelligence, which devotes 
special attention to matters of genealogy and peerage, 
informed its readers, in its issue of July 5, that 

The Philipps family is of great antiquity in South Wales. Among its 
ancestors was Sir Aaron Ap Rhys, who attended Richard I. to the Holy Land 
in 1 190, when he behaved so gallantly against the Saracens that he is said 
to have received from Richard the knighthood of the Sepulchre of Our 
Saviour and the addition of a * crown and chain ' to his arms of a lion ram- 
pant sable. 

We have not been able to refer to the Gazette of the 
period, and are therefore unable to say positively whether Sir 
Aaron was mentioned in despatches ; nor does there seem to 
be any record of the mysterious augmentation to his arms, 
which reminds one of that which was bestowed upon a 
Plowden for his gallantry at the siege of Acre.-^ But; the 
knighthood savours of a weakness we have observed in old- 

^ See Ike Ancestor , No. I, p. 234. 


time heralds for providing a ' Knight of the Holy Sepulchre ' 
as a sort of necessary ancestor that no gentlemen should be 

« « ^ 

The next paragraph is devoted to a wedding between a 
daughter 'of Sir Edward Cockburn, Bart.' (a title that will 
not be found in Burke) ' and Lady Cockburn of Pennoxton ' 
to the representative of ' the eminent and very ancient Here- 
fordshire family ' of Hereford of Sutton and Mordiford, which 
' claims to be derived from Roger Hereford, a famous philo- 
sopher in the time of Henry II.' The elaborate account of 
this family in Duncumb's County of Hereford (1882) does not 
go so far as this, but mentions its ' traditional ' descent from 
'Robert de Hereford, fined in a.d. 1158 for a homicide, and 
excused payment of a fine for his pardon in consideration of 
his hospitable proclivities — quia dedit se hospitali' ^ Lest this 
statement should startle the reader, a footnote is thoughtfully 
appended to explain that, according to Robertson's Charles F., 
' among people whose manners are simple, and who are seldom 
visited by strangers, hospitality is a virtue of the first rank,' 
etc., etc. Reference to the printed Pipe Roll of 4 Hen. 11. 
(1158) reveals the fact that the money was due, not for a 
homicide, but ' pro duello,' that is for a trial by battle. The 
reason for Robert receiving a remission of the payment was, 
of course, not his hospitable proclivities but that he had joined 
the Order of the Hospital ! That a blunder so grotesque as 
this can be found in a modern county history proves the 
need in that department of work for such expert knowledge 
as has been secured for the new Victoria County History, 

* * * 

A paragraph went the round of the press on June 1 8 in 
which was mentioned the interesting fact that Dean Lucas, 
who had just died in charge of the Roman Catholic Church 
at Colchester, was ' a direct descendant of Sir Charles Lucas,' 
the hero of the defence of Colchester, who was shot by the 
besiegers after its surrender in 1648. Two days later Bishop 
Bellord, preaching after the requiem for the dean, observed 
(according to the report in the Essex County Standard) that 

It was interesting to trace his character from his antecedents, as he came 
from an old English stock who greatly distinguished themselves. He was a 

1 Ed. W. H. Cooke, Q.C., F.S.A. 

1 20 


descendant of General Lucas who had achieved fame for his defence of Col- 
chester, during the siege, and his glorious death. His ancestors had at one 
time been prominent Quakers, but his father had been converted to the faith, 
etc., etc. 

As the paper from which we take this report grimly ob- 
serves : ' It is, to say the least of it, unusual to talk of the 
direct descendants of bachelors.' For, as every one knows, 
Sir Charles Lucas died unmarried, and his only legitimate 
brother, who (partly in consideration of Sir Charles' services) 
was created Lord Lucas, left no male issue. How the ^ promi- 
nent Quakers ' were connected with the famous cavalier we do 
not know, nor, we suppose, does any one else. It is note- 
worthy that the Tablet which was founded, we believe, by the 
dean's father did not repeat the story. 

« « « 

Harwich, which is one of the boroughs privileged to elect 
its own High Steward, has recently chosen for that office Mr. 
Berners of Woolverstone Park, Suffolk. In returning thanks 
for his election, according to a local paper, Mr. Berners 
obser\^ed that ' according to historians, the ancient town of 
Harwich was known many years before Christ, in the days of 
the early Britons, and in the reign of a King called Kimber- 
layne.' We are not acquainted with the latter monarch, 
whose name is suggestive of a foreigner's confusion between 
two of our Colonial secretaries. Lord Kimberley and Mr. 
Chamberlain ; but as to the antiquity of Harwich, that 
borough is not even mentioned in Domesday, being of subse- 
quent growth. Towns, it would seem, like families, have 
their apocryphal pedigrees ; but the good people of Harwich f 
can hardly have heard of its antiquity till their new High 
Steward revealed it to their delighted ears. 

« « « 

' The Royal Champion ' was the subject of a special article 
in ' the oldest evening paper ' on June 24. For the popular 
mind the king's champion has always possessed a singular 
fascination ; and the legends which surround his history pos- 
sess undying vitalit}\ We read for instance in this article 
that — 

The ceremony of the appearance of a champion dates back in this country 
to the time of William the Conqueror, at whose Coronation Robert de [sic] 
Marmion, Lord of Fontenay, in Normandy, filled the honourable post of 
Royal Champion, as his ancestors had formerly done for the Dukes of Nor- 



mandy, and for which service he was granted the manor of Scrivelsby, together 
with that of Tamworth. 

One could hardly conceive anything wilder than this. There 
is no record of the appearance of a champion at the king's 
Coronation earlier than 1399, when Richard 11. was crowned ; 
the name of Marmion is not territorial, and therefore had not 
' de ' ; and it is not even to be found in Domesday, where 
Tamworth and Scrivelsby are duly entered as held by Robert 
le Despenser {pispensator)^ brother of Urse d'Abetot. We 
need not consequently waste time over the performances of 
the Marmion ' ancestors * in Normandy before the Conquest. 

* * * 

The same article proceeds to explain that — 

At the Coronation of Richard II. Baldwin de Freville, a descendant of 
Philip de [sic] Marmion's daughter, Margery, claimed the office of Royal 
Champion by his tenure of the castle of Tamworth, and on the day of the 
ceremony he rode, completely armed upon a barbed horse, into Westminster 
Hall, there to challenge the combat against any who should gainsay the King's 
title. But his right was disputed by Sir John Dymoke, Lord of the Manor 
of Scrivelsby, who was finally adjudged to be the rightful Champion, etc., etc. 

The writer appears to believe that the two knights actually 
rode into Westminster Hall, in opposition to each other, at 
imminent risk of the Marshal arresting them and of losing 
their right hands for brawling in the royal presence. Need 
we observe that the dispute was settled, as it would be at the 
present day, before the ' court of claims,' the records of which, 
for that coronation, are preserved and are peculiarly familiar } 

* * * 

The proud and unique distinction enjoyed by the Dymoke 
family for more than five centuries makes it needless to claim 
for them, as in the above article, a ' descent from an ancient 
Welsh chieftain, who fifty years before the Norman Conquest 
had married the daughter of the Prince of North Wales.' It 
is precisely by such absurdities as these that ancient and re- 
markable pedigrees are exposed to obvious ridicule. 

* * * 

A case in point is afforded by the same evening paper in 
two paragraphs on the Howards and their earldom of Arundel. 
The house of Howard, which by birth and hereditary office 
takes a place so near the throne, has come of late years to 
stand in the estimation of the public for the symbol or ancient 



nobility in England. It is perhaps in the nature of things 
that the journalist should direct public attention less to the 
illustrious story of the Howards, of their adventurous rise and 
of the woes of their high estate, than to one or other of the 
score of legends concerning their origin. Of that origin but 
one word need be said. Sir William Howard, a chief justice 
of the common pleas, who flourished at the end of the thir- 
teenth century, still mocks the labour of genealogists and 
keeps unchallenged the top perch of the Howard pedigree. 
Of the ancestors whom industrious fancy, untrammeled by 
fact, has found for Sir William, a mysterious ' Auber, Earl of 
Passy,' was long the ruling favourite. But Dethick's influence 
has given way to that of Kingsley. A great novel threw 
popularity into another scale, and in our time the favourite 
Howard forefather, whether for peerage-makers or journalists, 
is that strange shadow out of the Lincolnshire bogs, the 
mythical Hereward the Wake. Month by month this hardy 
legend takes the air in print ; the spoiled favourite of editors, 
no journal grudges it space. Here then we cull it, in its full 
flower, from an evening paper of 9 July 1902. 

The family of Howard is unquestionably the most illustrious and probably 
the oldest in England. The Duke of Norfolk's coat of arms when fully set 
out with all its quarterings is one of the most remarkable pieces of heraldry in 
existence. To a competent herald it is almost a complete history of England. 
The Howards are believed, on fairly good evidence, to go back to the Howard 
or Hereward, who lived in the reign of King Edgar (960—75), and whose 
grandson was that Hereward the Wake, who was the last man in England to 
surrender to the Conqueror. It was, we believe, of his father Leofric that it 
was said that * his counsel was as the oracles of God.' 

The title of Earl of Arundel is peculiar in that it was never created and 
depends upon no patent. It arose somewhere about 1 1 5 5 entirely out of the 
possession of Arundel Castle, and it would be a curious puzzle for the lawyers 
whether, supposing such an impossible event as the sale of Arundel by the 
Duke of Norfolk, the purchaser would become Earl of Arundel. The better 
opinion is, we believe, that he would not, but that the ancient title would 
become extinct. 

The first sentence needs little gloss from us. We have 
already spoken of the origin of the Howards, and can but 
add that few as are the families which can in 1902 dispute 
precedence with a Howard of Norfolk on the score of long 
descent, yet such families still remain, and amongst them 
some which reckoned themselves of old nobility when Sir 
William, the first of the Howards, was administering the king's 


justice. The Howard-Hereward legend bases itself in the 
main upon the fact that Howard and Hereward both begin 
with an H — a reasoning which needs other support, for the 
surname of the house of Norfolk need not go so far afield for 
its origin. The story of the Wake has already been dealt 
with in l!he Ancestor, Let us add at least that Hereward was 
not the son of Leofric, nor is any such person on record ag 
* Howard or Hereward/ the newly discovered parent of the 
oracular counsellor. To the antiquary as to the Conqueror 
the Wake is a doughty champion. The last Englishman to 
surrender to the Normans, his legend holds Fleet Street to- 
day against every assault of the new criticism. 

For a paragraph to follow the Hereward legend the lino- 
type may be trusted to print us the story of the Earldom of 
Arundel ; and although it is now familiar to the newspaper 
reader as the story of Hereward himself, we may say that we 
have seldom met with a clearer setting forth of a well-kenned 
history. Long may the Howards flourish Earls of Arundel ; 
but yet we would that the experiment hinted at by the 
journalist might be essayed. Imagine the ' impossible event * 
achieved, and our millionaire purchaser happed up solemnly 
in the great bed of the tapestried state bedroom of Arundel, 
with what excitement we should await his rising to learn 
whether the mysterious influences of the castle had wrought 
their work, and whether he would come down to breakfast as 
Earl of Arundel. 

* * * 

In the first issue of T^he Ancestor (p. 235) we spoke of* the 
curious belief that this or that oak is " mentioned in Domes- 
day Book," ' and explained that it had no foundation. Since 
then this odd delusion has made its appearance anew. An 
interesting illustrated article on * Lord Salisbury at Home * in 
^he Graphic of July 1 9 mentioned that in Hatfield Park ' the 
massive Lion Oak, which still shoots forth its green leaves, 
will be found mentioned in Domesday Book, if any one cares 
to look for it.* Now that the contents of Domesday have 
been made accessible by the Victoria County History^ one need 
only turn to vol. i. of the history of Hertfordshire to learn 
that in this case also the oak will be sought for in vain. 



The same article contained a description and a small illus- 
tration of ' a chart, twelve to fifteen yards long, which traces 
Queen Elizabeth's ancestry back to Adam and Eve,' and ' is 
kept in an elaborately carved oak case and is beautifully em- 
blazoned in colours.' The illustration enables one to recognize 
a typical Elizabethan pedigree covered with coats of arms. The 
production is one eminently suggestive of what was believed 
before the ' higher criticism ' had turned its attention to the 
performances of Elizabethan heralds.-^ 

* * * 

A weekly illustrated paper, writing of the engagement of 
Mr. Dudley Carleton, Baroness Dorchester's son, observes 
that * the Carletons were seated at Carleton near Penrith, at 
the Conquest, and at the visitation of Cumberland in 1665 
Sir William Carleton of Carleton Hall certified his descent, 
eighteen generations in all, from Baldwin de Carleton.' Mr. 
Bird has observed that in Burke s Peerage y ' Sir Bernard Burke's 
Reminiscences ' are cited for the facts of the dispute between 
Scrope and Grosvenor five centuries before^ ; but those of 
Sir William Carleton were even more remarkable, enabling 
him, as they did, to certify that Sir Baldwin was seated at 
Carleton, when the Conqueror came, six hundred years before. 
Mr. Dudley Carleton, we may add, is paternally a Pigott. 

* * * 

Under the heading of ^ What is Believed ' we cannot spare 
the critic who rejoiced us with a column in which a not over 
skilful pen had striven to express a somewhat illnatured dissent 
from The Ancestor^ its aims, its articles and its writers. Much 
criticism of ^he Ancestor has appeared in the press. The kind- 
liness of that criticism is gratefully acknowledged by the con- 
ductors of a review which may be said to invite batde by its 
attitude, an attitude which, as we are willing to acknowledge, a 
herald might be justified in describing in his beloved jargon as 
rampant combattant, 

* * * 

But some protest is surely called for when one who criticizes 
an archaeological review harangues Mr. Horace Round on the 
carelessness which allows him to describe a certain William as 
'a canon of Holy Trinity, London.' The objection to this 

1 Compare pp. 14, 34 above. 

2 The Ancestor, No. i, p. 167. 


description is hard to discover. There was a church of Holy- 
Trinity in London, and canons had their stalls in that church. 
It is hardly possible that we have here a critic who would allow 
canons to cathedral churches only, but other explanation is 
hard to find. 

* * * 

In heraldry our critic is no less dogmatic. Richard of 
Cornwall, he tells us, * bore no eagles ' but ' a lion crowned 
within a bordure bezantee,' and our contributor who had 
spoken of Richard's eagles comes under the lash therefor. 
But Macaulay's idlest schoolboy will tell our critic that Richard 
of Cornwall was also the Richard, King of the Romans, and in 
this second capacity left his Roman eagles in tiles and glass 
and stone and brass over so wide a field in England and 
Europe that those eagles have become tolerably familiar to the 

* * * 

Genealogy found our critic at his most severe. We 
quoted the old rime of Crocker, Cruwys and Coplestone, who, 
when the Conqueror came, were all snugly at home. Into 
that home our critic bursts and lugs out Cruwys. The critic 
had already hulled us twice with heavy sarcasm over one 
printer's error in the 'The Ancestor s two hundred and odd 
pages, and here, he guessed, was another such. ' Cruwys,' he 
asks, ' who may Cruwys be ? ' and suggests a misprinted 
' Carew.' Yet out of the mouths of the mere sucklings of 
genealogical lore he might have learned that Carew claimed 
neither in book nor ballad any pre-Conquest descent in 
Devonshire, whilst Cruwys did, and Cruwys' claim is sung in 
the rime. And Cruwys, although only represented nowadays 
through the female line, may well resent the question ' who 
may Cruwys be ? ' as an improper one concerning one of the 
oldest west-country houses. 

* * •* 

The memoirs of Sir Edward Blount, K.C.B., which have 
lately appeared, are rich in examples of ' what is believed.' 
They open with a magnificent flourish of the family trumpet. 

The Blounts trace their origin to the Le Blounds, Counts of Guisnes in 
Picardy. Count Raoul de Guisne {sic), who was head of the family when 
William of Normandy invaded England, had three sons, and all of them 
accompanied the Conqueror. One returned to France ; but the other two, 
Sir Robert and Sir William le Blound, settled in England, and from them the 


1 26 


Blounts in this kingdom are descended. Sir Robert le Blound was com- 
mander of the ships of war, and he was one of the Conqueror's Council. His 
brother, Sir William, was General of the Foot. Sir Robert le Blound . . . was 
styled, from his principal possessions, Baron of Ickworth and Lord of Orford. 
He married the youngest daughter of Henry, Earl Ferrers. ... Sir William le 
Blound, on the other hand, had an ample inheritance in Lincolnshire bestowed 
upon him by the Conqueror. 

The Blounts of Soddington in Worcestershire, and of Mawley near Cleo- 
bury in Shropshire, are descended from William, the second son of Sir Robert 
le Blound. 

On the Conqueror's expedition it would seem that few staff 
appointments were vacant after the great Blount interest at the 
Norman War Office had done its work. But the Blounts, as 
Sir Edward is ready to admit, are not the only old family to 
be found in Shropshire. 

The long association of my family with Shropshire came out rather oddly 
in a discussion between some farmers at an audit dinner at Mawley Hall a few 
years ago. Several tenants were contesting the point as to which of their 
families could boast of having rented land for the longest period on the estate, 
when the woodman, named Allen, proved from documents to the satisfaction 
of all present that his ancestors had either been in the employment of, or had 
held the position of tenant farmers under, the Blount family for a period of 
nearly 800 years. His ancestors came over from Normandy with the family 
at the time of the Conquest, and from father to son, right up to the present 
time, they had been retained on the estate (p, 8). 

An audit dinner at Mawley Hall must be a banquet of 
which the antiquary might crave the broken meats. An audit 
dinner, mark you, at which even the family woodman, 
apparently by custom rather than by accident, sits at board 
with eight hundred years of his family evidences in his 
breeches pocket. An audit dinner at which the farmers sitting 
round the marvellous woodman are each and all skilled in 
palaeography and the necessary Old French and contracted 
Latin to a degree which enables them to glance through the 
woodman's evidence on the spot and to pronounce them 
satisfactory. Sir Edward's account of the audit dinner ends 
with the story of Allen the woodman, but he wrongs us by 
his reticence. With gleeful respect we should listen for the 
outspoken opinion of these hearty Shropshire farmers, warmed 
with their audit ale, on such vexed questions as that of the 
Red Book of the Exchequer, 


IN a former issue of The Ancestor we told the story of 
Richard Barker and his gentility, and how a Norfolk jury 
made sport with that gentility when it was produced in court 
for their handling. In the first year of King James I. gentility 
comes again into court — this time into the court of the King*s 
Chancery — and alas for that subtle quality concerning whose 
value and import long-winded learning was spreading itself 
over much fine paper, it again makes matter of mirth. 

Our documents are two in number.^ The first is the Bill 
of Complaint of William Exelby ' of Southmyms in the countie 
of Middlesex gent,' dated 28 May 1603. His plea need not 
keep us long. The parchment is torn and faded, but the 
import is straightforward enough. One William Lee of the 
Inner Temple in London, esquire, was seised of an estate of 
inheritance in a farm called Durismes or Durhams in the 
parishes of Southmyms and Ridge, and being so seised, made 
a lease of the premises to one Kinge, which lease the com- 
plainant, who was buying an estate in that neighbourhood, 
bought of the lessee. It was afterwards agreed that the com- 
plainant should surrender his interest in this lease and take a 
new lease from William Lee, who thereupon, with Elizabeth 
his wife, by indenture of lease dated 8 June 40 Eliza. [1598] 
demised to the complainant the capital mansion house with 
the barns belonging, and certain parcels of land, for a term of 
21 years. 

Soon after this transaction the said William Lee desires to 
convey away his whole inheritance in the premises, and comes 
to terms with the complainant for the yielding up of the lease 
for a certain consideration. But William Lee's ways are not 
those of one with whom business affairs pass easily and 
pleasantly, and the Bill of Complaint follows naturally enough. 
The complainant describes him as ^ driven to some necessities,' 
no exaggerated phrase when we understand that the esquire 
was ' then lying and being as theretofore and sythence for the 

^ Chan. pro. before 1714, *Mitford,' v. 82. 




space of many years in prison in the Counter in Woodstreet 
London for debt/ But the stone walls and iron bars of the 
Counter in Woodstreet made something more than a hermi- 
tage for William Lee, esquire. His innocent and quiet mind 
took them for a place of security from which he might answer 
William Exelby at his ease. 

His answer is at great length. Doubtless the preparation 
of it, a labour of love with one who was of the honourable 
society of the Middle Temple, filled many agreeable days of 
the leisured life encouraged by such retreats as the Counter in 
Woodstreet. One may believe that it was heard with great 
approval by the contemplative inhabitants of the Counter as 
William Lee, esquire, with all an author's pride, read it aloud 
for a literary accompaniment to the evening's ale. Even so a 
certain Memorial was to be read aloud to his fellow collegians 
in the King's Bench prison by a second esquire, Wilkins 
Micawber by name, another neat hand at a phrase. 

This answer is dated i6 June 1603, and we have soon put 
behind us the commonplaces of the dispute about the lease. 
By this time, no doubt, his business affairs have ceased to vex 
William Lee. In his character of member of the Middle 
Temple, he hazards the opinion that the action should have 
been brought at the common law, and with that he wipes his 
hands of leases, conveyances and agreements. But there is 
another matter in which he is more curious, and concerning 
which he addresses himself to the Lord Chancellor of England 
as to a fellow member of a learned profession. Exelby's bill 
may be a common law trumpery, it matters little one way or 
the other, but is it indeed possible that William Exelby has 
described himself at the head of it as a ' gent ' ? This defend- 
ant doth think it strange if the complainant be the same 
William Exelby which he doth pretend by his said bill to be. 
The William Exelby with whom William Lee, esquire, had to 
do, surely dare not usurp the title or name of a gendeman ? 
For what was the father, the ' reputed father ' of the said 
William Exelby ? William Lee will tell my Lord Chancellor. 
That father was ' one Myles commonly soe called a cuttinge 
tayler dwellynge somtymes in Fletestreate London whoe by 
his large bills and small measures ' — in William Lee now ot 
the Counter, esquire, we have doubtless a ex-customer of 
Myles — 'grewe into wealth, and being puffed uppe w^^ the 
same termed himself then as yt was commonly reported ' — 


oh, shame to Fletestreate — ' Myles the Body Maker/ a name, 
as William Lee*s decent piety is quick to point out to my 
Lord Chancellor, which is only proper unto God. Yet such 
was the pride of this Myles ' that he dyd arrogate this name 
for his boulstering and bumbastynge out of mens garmentes, 
whereby he made them rather like monsters then modest men 
suche as they ought to be, whose proude example the com- 
playnant dothe seeke to followe that the olde proverbe may be 
still verefied suche a father suche a sonne.' Applause we 
must supply here, and clattering of mug bottoms upon the ale 
bench in the Counter, as William Lee takes breath and looks 
modestly up to the companions of his captivity. ^ For as 
the father was of suche mechanicall occupation as is aforesaide 
so dyd not this defendant ever heare or knowe that the 
complaynant was ever made a gentleman.' With the memory 
of Richard Barker before us we pause in surprise. How shall 
this son of an impious and mechanical bumbaster be made 
gentle ? But in this first year of King James I., Abana and 
Pharpar are flowing, the sources of gentility are in no dispute. 
William Lee, esquire, pauses triumphantly for an answer 
when he demands to know whether ' the Complaynant was 
ever made a gentleman either by armes gyven him by the 
Kinges or Queenes of this realme ' — that is to say, by the 
accredited channels of the fountain of honour — ' or ever was 
by any of them called unto the office or place of a gentle- 
man ? ' And finally, as one lawyer to another, William Lee 
begs my Lord Chancellor's advice on the point whether he 
should ever answer the complainant by the name or addition 
of gentleman in any one of his Majesty's courts of record. 

Such an outburst of abuse against a tradesman for his 
quality of tradesman is rare in 1603. The date seems amaz- 
ing, and it needs all William Lee's Jacobean phrases to per- 
suade us that we are not dealing with an affair of the Great 
Snob Period, which for the historian begins with King George 
the Third, and flowers and fruits with the novels of Theodore 
Hook, Thackeray's Mr. Wagg. For Mr. Wagg it was dis- 
gusting that a man should deal in leather, that he should 
make clothes was a humorous baseness, to be a grocer was 
despicably funny. But in the reign of Elizabeth, Myles 
Exelby, at whom this out-at-elbows esquire rails so violently, 
was of a class held in high honour, and one above all which 
was the stay and delight of her Majesty's heralds and kings 



of arms, who would have been in poor case without the citi- 
zen's grant of arms, his lying in state, his scutcheoned funeral. 
Myles Exelby the father was of the parish of St. Dunstan-in- 
the-West, a citizen and merchant taylor, and therefore a mem- 
ber of one of the chiefest and most powerful city gilds. He 
died in 1579, and an inquest taken after his death describes 
his two Fleet Street houses as held in chief of the Crown. 
His family married with gentry, and his sons William and 
Myles are described as gentlemen in many documents. 
Myles the younger settled at Stoke Nayland in Suffolk, 
where he died in 161 6, leaving a will wherein he is de- 
scribed as ' gentleman.' The elder brother, William Exelby ot 
South Mims, was a citizen and merchant taylor like his father. 
He was born in 1563 and died in 161 8. In his will he is 
described as of North Mims, co. Herts, gentleman, and more 
solid evidence of his position is given in the inquest taken 
after his death in 161 8, wherein both he and his son and 
heir are described by the Escheator of the Crown as gentle- 

Myles Exelby the father was the son of one of the 
Exelbys of Norton-in-the-Clay, a hamlet in Cundall parish of 
Yorkshire.-^ It is curious to observe that had William Exelby 
for his rejoinder to William Lee gone pedigree making 
amongst his Yorkshire kinsfolk, it is highly probable that he 
could have produced a line of ancestors of an ancient landed 
house against which the esquire of the Counter, or any other 
Lee in England, would have been hard pressed to match 
pedigrees. For the Exelbys of Norton were cadets of an 
house in an adjoining parish, whose family stock of Exelby ot 
Exelby had its origin in an early Norman house, the Folifates, 
to whom Eskelby or Exelby had come by an heiress many 
centuries before William Lee's bill. 

Whereby a moral hangs. Gentility is no longer to be 
measured by the yardwands of William Lee and Theodore 
Hook ; let us be in no haste to set up the standard of the 
Armorial Gent. If arms make the gent, William Exelby 
might have 'enterprised that style and addition ' by right ot 
an older blazon and a finer one than any which he could have 
acquired by purchase from Garter. Whether W^illiam Lee's 

1 For Information concerning the early Exelbys I am indebted to excellent 
genealogical work of a descendant of the house, Mr. H. D. Eshelby, F.S.A. 


rebuke brought the erring Exelby to the blush we know not, 
but if so, it was ' the gentle Norman bluid ' that reddened his 
cheek. Wherefore let us be in love and charity with our 
neighbour, and in no haste to write him down ignobilis. After 
all, the Basques claim that all true Basques are born noble : 
in decency we can make no less a claim for all Englishmen of 
the blood. 




STAPLETON, BART., 1656-1705 



LORD MACAULAY'S description of the country squire 
of these times as an ignorant^ determined stay-at-home, 
and a detester of London and Londoners, intensified in the 
case of a Papist, who is described as ' vegetating as quietly as 
the elms of the avenue which led to his ancestral grange,' is 
quite contradicted by the constant movements of Sir Miles 
Stapleton. Considering the numerous gaps in these house- 
holds books, it would appear as if Sir Miles visited town 
nearly every year. The very first of this series of books 
vields a full account of his journey to the metropolis and his 
sojourn there, chiefly on this occasion for legal purposes. 

A dispute having arisen as to certain landed property and 
manorial rights at Bedale during the minority of Mr. Miles 
Stapleton, the young squire took proceedings for the recovery 
of his rights soon after his accession to his estates. On 
April 19, 1656, he set out for London in order to be present 
at ' the tryall for Beedall in Easter tearm.' He rode to town 
accompanied by his manservant, and, judging from subse- 
quent journeys, spent four days on the road. The charges 
for himself and man and their horses in going to town amounted 
to £1 js, 6d., and on the return to 95. 6d, They tarried 
in London a little over three weeks, paying for ' dyett and 
other expenses ' £^ 75. 6^., as well as £2 35. 6d. for ^ grasse 
hay and corne for our horses.' 

The legal expenses of this suit are entered with much 
detail, some of the items being sufficiently curious : — 

j£ J. d. 

It. given to Mr. Litster for a reteyning fee oo lo oo 

It. given to Mr. Goodrick for a reteyning fee against the trj'all oo lo oo 
It. paid for certificates out the registers at Beedall and Hornby oo oo lo 
It. paid for a search in the rolls about Sheptons deed . . . oo o i oo 

It. paid for a search in the rolls for a fine oo 02 04 

It. paid for examining Sir Rich. Sheptons will 00 02 00 


It. paid for making two affidavits in the upper bench court £ s. d. 

where the tryall should have been 00 03 00 

It. paid for writeing briefes for the counsell . . . . . . 00 08 06 

It. given to Sergt. Tweesden for his fee for the tryall . . . 04. 00 00 
It. given to Mr. Goodricke for his fee for the tryall . . . . 02 00 00 

It. given to Mr. Nilde for a fee to move for coste when they 

gave us notice that they would not trye it 02 00 00 

It. given to Mr. Litster to move for coste above but it could not 

be obteyned 01 00 00 

It. paid by consent to the jury being but ten in number or 

else wee had got a nonsuit, so yt I was forced to give 

them 40 shillings a man, that the other side might give 

them as much, or else they had got nothing . . . . 20 00 00 
It. paid to Mr. George Dineley for comeing out of Oxfordshire 

to Lond. to bear witness for us at the tryall for his 

chardges and paines in all . . 02 00 00 

It. my mans chardges goeing into Oxfordshire to fetch Mr. 

Dineley 00 03 04. 

It. paid to George Binley for goeing upp to London from 

Beedall to bee a witness for us at the tryall 04 00 00 

It. spent with thejuryers when I paid them my 20/i. . . . 00 05 04 
It. given to Mr. Nilds man when I fetched away my briefe . 00 01 00 
It. paid to Mr. Kitchell our Attourney in this business about 

the tryall for Beedall upon his bill 01 07 04 

It. paid to Mr. Langley for all paines in helping to solliscitt 

about the tryall in Easter teame 1656 02 00 00 

It. paid to Mr. Danbye for his paines in helping to solliscitt 

about the tryall in Easter teame 1656 08 00 00 

Disbursed in chardges . . . . 48 16 02 
Chardges goeing to London and coming downe 10 08 00 

Chardges in all comes to . . . 59 04 02 

Mr. Stapleton found time, during this his first visit to 
town, to spend some money on his own personal require- 
ments and adornment. Some of the items, such as ' fancyes 
of taffety ribbin ' for his suit, tend to disprove the popular 
fallacy as to the universal gloom and plainness of male attire 

during the Commonwealth. 

It. paid for ribbin for shoestringe for myselfe 00 o i 00 

It. paid for a paire of bearers for my toppe , . . . . . 000104 

It. paid for a box and a powder brush 00 00 07 

It. paid for a paire of shoues for myselfe 00 04 00 

It. paid for 3 paire of gloves for myselfe . . . . . . . 00 04 06 

It. paid for dressing my ould hatt 00 01 00 

It. paid for a new hatt for myselfe 01 06 00 

It. paid for 1 1 yards camole de holland for a suit and doake 

for myselfe at 6d. a yard 04 02 06 


It. paid for two peeces of tafFaty ribbin for fancyes for my suit . o i 1 5 oo 
It. paid to Mr. Baker the Taylor for making upp my suit and 

cloake with lininges and all other things 02 13 00 

It. paid for a paire of new silke tops sutable to my fancyes . . 00 07 06 

It. paid for a paire of thred bottoms for my topps . . . . 00 01 00 
It. paid for a paire of new Spanish leather shoes and gallotives 

for myselfe 00 07 00 

It. paid for a new holland band and cuffs and stockings, and a 

garnish of handcherchiffe buttons 001000 

It, paid for six ells of holland for two shirts for my selfe . . 01 1 1 06 

It. paid to John Baker for altering my black suit 00 03 06 

It. for too garnish more of handcherchiffe buttons for myselfe . 00 03 04 

The purchases for his wife and for the Lady Sophia show 
that this Yorkshire country gentleman was a man of good 
taste, whilst the purchase of the luxury of tobacco for his 

lunatic brother points to a good heart. 

It. for a peece of plate with a cover and a silver spoon for my- £^ s. d, 

selfe and my wife 05 00 00 

It. paid the herrald painter for my coat of armes 00 02 00 

It. paid for setting my wifes armes and mine upon the silver 

cup and cover 00 01 06 

It. paid for two paire of orrange floore gloves for my wife . . 00 09 00 
It. paid for an ibbony blacke box lined with Spanish perfumed 
leather and for two paire of orrange floore gloves I pre- 
sented my Lady Sophia 01 07 00 

It. paid for siena, manna, and ruberb for my wife . . . . 00 1 7 00 

It. paid tobacco for my brother 00 04 00 

It. paid for handchercher buttons for my wife 00 03 00 

In Easter terme 1657 the Bedale case again came on, and 
Miles Stapleton was again in London. Friday, May i, was 
the day appointed, but ^ our adversaries would not try it 
when it came to be called.* The total legal expenses of that 
year amounted to ;^6i 14J. 02d, Among the items are: — 

It. paid for the Act of sale of delinquents lands wherein Sir s, d. 

Will. Theaxton our adversary was named 00 01 00 

It. paid to halfe of the jury being but 8 in number and I con- 
sented to give them 4/i. los. a man, when Mr. Tas- 
borough and I referred our business to my Lord Marq. of 
Dortchester and Mr. Hen. Howard my moitye whereof 

was 1 8 which Mr. Tasb : is to pay mee againe if the busi- 

nes be not agreed 180000 

It. paid my halfe of the chardges spent with the jury when 

they were agreed with and paid 01 02 04 

It. paid for goeing by water and spent with one of the jury . 00 o i 00 
It. given to Mr. Feliskirke for goeing about to examine some 

Acts of Parliament concerning delinquents 00 o 5 00 


On this occasion the visit was prolonged from the end of 
April to the end of August ; he was accompanied by his wife 
* to lye inn of her child there/ His sister Anne went up 
with them in their coach, as well as * Mrs. Dorothy/ Two 
of his serving men rode by the side of the coach. They 
were six days on their journey, and their expenses on the road 
amounted tO;^6 loj. iid. Nan, his wife's maid, came up with 
the carrier, her journey costing 235. The carting of their 
heavy luggage to Doncaster cost 3^., and the carrier's charges 
for conveying the same to London amounted to 12s. ^d, 
at 2d, the pound. 

On arriving in London the first disbursements were half- 
crown ^ to musicke for welcoming us to towne,' twopence to a 
link boy, and another half-crown to the poor people who 
gathered round the doors of their lodgings. 

The details as to the birth and death of his child are worth 

giving in extenso, 

Chardges extraordinary at my wifes lyin inn of her childe july 
the 9th 1657 it was then borne being Thursday morninge. 

It. given to Doctor Hinton the man midwife for comeing when £ s. d, 

she had been long in labor 05 oo oo 

It. paid to Doctor Hintons Appothecary his bill for things for 

my wife and the childe 01 07 00 

It. given to Doctor Prigeon for comeing to my wife . . . . 02 00 00 

It. paid a coatch for Doctor Prigeon 00 01 06 

It. paid to Mr. Skelton the Appothicary for things for my wife 

and childe 00 14 00 

It. paid for goeing by water severall for the midwife Mrs. 

Linsee 00 05 05 

It. given myselfe to Mrs. Linsee the midwife for her paines 

about my wife 02 00 00 

It. given to Nan for bringing me news of my wife being de- 
livered 00 02 00 

It. given to Mr. Oglethorpe for Christening the child . . . 00 10 00 

It. given to Mr. Elmer and Mr. Hawood to pray for it . . 00 10 00 

It. given to Mr. Chambers to pray for my wife 00 02 00 

It. paid for a coffin for the child w*^^ dyed at 8 days end . . 00 06 00 
It. paid the church dutyes for burying the child at St. Gregoryes 

under Poules 02 07 02 

It. paid for church dutyes at comon garden (Covent Garden) 

church 00 14 06 

It. paid for the Nurse keeper for keeping my wife her month . 03 02 06 
It. paid to Mrs. Dorothy for provisions of all sorts into the 

house during my wifes month 1 2 00 00 

31 02 01 



On his wife's recovery, Sir Miles presented her with ' two 
fine lardge new fashioned hoUand aprons,' which cost 38J. and 
'a litle silver spoone for a fareing.' 

In 1658 Sir Miles and his lady again visited London, and 
once more 2s, 6d, was given ^ to the musicke y' wellcomed my 
wife and mee to towne/ Twopence was paid ' for new Milke 
under the cowe,' and ' fouerpence ' for peaches for his wife. 
' The lame men in comon garden ' obtained 6d. and a blacka- 
moor at the 'Beehive' i2d. 

On September 29 Sir Miles paid 355. for 'a place in the 
hackny coatch for myselfe from London to Ferrybridge.' The 
coach was four days on the road. When he reached Ferry- 
bridge, he paid 3J. for the hire of a horse on which he rode 

When Sir Miles was in town in 1659 he spent the large 
sum of;£io 45. on a suit and cloak of satin, which was trimmed 
with thirty-six yards of silver ribbon. Scouring his pearl 
coloured silk stockings cost u., and a pot of jessamy butter 
for his hair is, 6d, At the same time he bought for his own 
use ' a paire of scarlett coloured worsted stirrup stockinges ' 
for 55. and a ' sky coloured tabby waistcoat ' for 2j. 

On June 9, 1662, Sir Miles journeyed to London about 
his ' Beedall business ' when he ' agreed with Theakeston.' His 
own fare by hackney coach from Doncaster was £2 55., and he 
also paid to the coachman loj. 6^. for carrying his 'cloak-bag.' 
He took up to town with him his man Thomas Stevenson, 
who rode by the side of the coach. The charges that were 
incurred, being ' four dayes on the road,' for board and lodging 
were £1 8j., inclusive of the expenses of his man's horse. 

Sir Miles alighted at the ' Black Swan ' in Tower Street, 
the tavern where the Earl of Rochester took lodgings under 
an assumed name when banished from the Court. To the 
porter who carried his cloak-bag to his lodgings a payment 
was made of 4^/. He tarried in London during this visit for 
ten weeks and some odd days, lodging at Mrs. Atkenes, and 
paying for his own diet at the rate of 12s. a week. He paid 
meanwhile js. 6d, per week as board wages to his manservant. 
The coach hire, whilst in town, ' on many several times and 
occasions,' amounted to los. 6d. In addition to this there 
is a separate entry of los. for coach hire, being half the charge 
of a coach and four to Hampton Court on August 2, when he 
went with his brother Gregory to kiss the queen's hand. His 


cousin, Thomas Gascoigne, and Mr. Percy went with them and 
paid the other moiety, but do not seem to have kissed hands. 
Dinner for the four and other casual expenses at Hampton 
amounted to i6j., of which Sir Miles paid half. 

Notwithstanding the claims of business. Sir Miles managed 
to blend a good deal of amusement with this visit to London. 
The large sum of £2 os. 6d.^ which was the total cost of ^ goeing 
severall times to see plays,' must have represented frequent 
visits to ' the King's play house and S" Will. Davenant's play 
house.' Unfortunately the names of the plays that he saw 
are on this occasion omitted. On one occasion he gave his 
man Tom a sixpence to enable him to see a play. He acknow- 
ledges to an expenditure of ^^i 12s. 6d, in fruit, wine and ale 
with several friends on different occasions. One day he dined 
with his brother Gregory at a cost for both of 3J. 6d.^ and on 
another occasion with his cousin Gascoigne at a cost of 2s. 6d. 

One of the first visits that he paid was to his sister-in-law, 
Lady Sophia, at Richmond, the charges of the waterman there 
and back being 6s, On leaving he gave 2s, 6d, to Mrs. Wise- 
man, ' my Lady Sophia's woman.' He also went by water, at 
a charge of u., to visit 'my Lord of Lindsey ' at Campden 
House, Kensington. The Earl of Lindsey held the hereditary 
office of Lord High Chamberlain, and exercised his duties at 
the coronation of Charles II. On April i, 1661, he was elected 
a knight of the Order of the Garter. 

His Yorkshire neighbour. Sir John Saville, took him in 
his coach to Highgate to dine with ' my Lord Marquesse ot 
Dorchester.' The marquis' porter received a shilling, whilst 
Sir John Saville's coachman and footman received respectively 
2s. 6d. and is, 6d, He also visited Portingall House and Fox 
Hall, though he does not mention their owners or inmates. 
His gifts to his brother-in-law's footboy denote several visits 
to him, and the same applies to Sir Thomas Gascoigne. 

He paid to Mr. Wright for ' makeinge a coppye of the 
Intail ' 55., and other small charges that are entered seem to 
be legal expenses. He spent %d, on 'paper to write letters 
with,' whilst his charges on post letters during the ten or eleven 
weeks amounted to 185. lod. He paid 6d, for a copy of the 
' Act about chimley money.' This refers to the first English 
tax in respect of houses, which was charged at 2s, for every 
fire hearth and stove. It was granted by Parliament in 1662, 
just before Sir Miles reached town, 'to support the King's 


crown and dignity.' It was usually termed the chimney or 
chimley tax. It fell somewhat heavily upon Sir Miles, as 
his enlarged house at Carlton had no less than twenty-three 
chimneys or hearths, whilst the dower house of Quousque had 

The only book that Sir Miles Stapleton seems to have pur- 
chased on this visit was a volume called Fiat Lux^ price yj., of 
which he made a present to Lady Tempest, the daughter of his 
cousin, Sir Thomas Gascoigne. This lady was afterwards in- 
volved in the Yorkshire branch of the odious Titus Gates plot. 

The appearance of certain lame soldiers in the Strand 
caused the unlooseing of the pursestrings to the extent of 
6^., and various other poor folk profited by Sir Miles' 
sojourn in town. 

One entry in his account book names his visits to the 
barber. It runs as follows : 'Paid to the barbers for trim- 
ming mee whilest I stayed in Lond. being sometimes once a 
week and sometimes twise 1 55. 6d' ' Mr. Delaroach the 
frenshman ' received 55. ' for drawinge out a stump of a 
tooth and for dressing my teeth.' Mr. Broads treet also 
received 55. ' for doing something to my throat when it was 
very sore and my uvelay downe.' He also paid to ' Mr. Peirs 
the Appothicary his bill for things for mee when I was not 
well and my uvelay downe ' and to Mr. Peirs' man for 
administering a glister, 2s. At the same time he remembered 
to discharge a bill of 1 55. due to ' Mr. Shelton the Appothi- 
cary for things my wife had from him when she was with childe 
of Bryan.' 

His affection for his wife is shown in not only bringing 
her presents, but in despatching them home. Thus he paid 
95. for ' some drinking glasses ' which were sent on to his 
v/ife. He also saw to the packing up of a gown for Lady 
Stapleton, paying is. 2d. for the box, and 4^. 'to a porter for 
taking it to the Doncaster carryer.' 

His brother Gregory left him for Flanders just at the 
beginning of August, being presented by Miles with ioj., 
whilst John, his brother Gregory's man, received 55. 

At the end of his sojourn he purchased two boxes {is. Sd.) 
to contain the clothes he had bought and ' the writeings ' or 
evidences of his Bedale property. A porter received 6d. for 
taking these two boxes to the Doncaster carrier at ' the bell 
savage.' The ' Belle Savage ' on Ludgate Hill was a well- 


known London tavern, and a starting point for sundry 
coaches and stage waggons. The carrier's charge for the 
two was 1 2 J. 

Much of his visit was occupied in legal business with 
regard to the completing of i,ooo years' lease of the Beedale 
property with lOO marks annuity and enrolling it in Chancery. 
He also ' paid in fees in the Exchequer about getting my 
quietus est out of the pipe office for my Barronets Pattent/ 
£^ 1 6s. od.y together with 1 2s, ^ given then to Mr. Thomas 
Lee of the Temple July the 8th for his paines for getinge me 
the Quietus est.' 

The grant of the dignity of a baronet had been made to 
' Miles Stapleton of Carleton, co. York/ on February 25, 

The following are the particulars entered in his household 
books for the ' purchase ' of this dignity, apart from the fees 
the new baronet paid when in town : — 

£ s. d. 

It. Paid to George Abbott for Collonell Gillby Aprill 1662, 
upon our agreement for my Pattent for being made an 
English Barronett three hundred and fortye pounds . 340 00 00 

It. Paid then to Mr. James Wright by agreement for being 

instrumental! in the busines 05 00 00 

It. Given then to Mr. George Abbott, for his paines about 
the busines, when I received my pattent from him under 

the great seale of England 02 07 00 

It. Given or paid to Mr. Thomas Lee of the Temple my 
sollicitor for his paines July the 15th 1662 about my 
busines virith Mr. Will Goode who takes the accompts of 
Lunaticks Guardians and sent downe severall letters to me 
about it a Mrs. Lee got it put of 02 07 00 

The following are the items of expenditure on clothes 
incurred in London in 1662 by this example of Macaulay's 

' coarse uneducated country gentlemen ' : — 

It. Paid to Mrs. Cheatam at the signe of the frying pan in 

middle row for a new periwigg for my selfe . . . . 03 00 00 
It. Paid to Mr. Rider for a paire of new pearle coloured silke 

stockings for my selfe . . . 01 02 00 

It. Paid for a paire of Spanish leather shoues with gallotios for 

my selfe 00 08 02 

It. Paid to Mr. Maltby for a demicaster hatt for my selfe . . 01 00 08 
It. Paid to Swayby for a paire of white hides leather gloves for 

my selfe 00 01 08 

Dom. State Papers, Chas. II. li. 1 2, 49. 



It. Paid for a paire of new fashioned rideing panteloons and £ s. d. 

stockings for my selfe 00 08 06 

It. Paid to my bro. Ed. Bartye for a paire of canvis rideing 

stockings for my selfe 00 02 06 

It. Paid more to my bro. Edward Bartye for a paire of lardg 

strong rideing boots for my selfe 01 00 00 

It. Paid for a paire of spurr leathers 00 00 06 

It. Paid to Mr. Wiseman partner w4th Mr. Halfehead, at the 

signe of the naked boy in Paternoster row for 1 1 yards 

of stufFe at 3/. 6d. a yard for making a suit and coat for 

my selfe 01 18 06 

It, Paid to Mr. Pegg the Taylor his bill for triming and making 

up my StufFe suit and coat in all 08 i 3 00 

It. Paid to Mr. Pegs man for bringing home my clothes when 

they were made 00 ci 06 

It. Paid more to Mr. Pegg his bill for altering my black cloth 

bretches and seting new blacke ribbin on them . . . 01 02 06 

When he left his London lodgings on August 25, he gave 
Mr. Atken's maid 55. He rode back on a ' sorrild horse ' 
that he had bought from his brother Gregory for 1 5J.5 in- 
clusive of saddle and bridle, whilst his man was mounted on the 
galloway he had brought with him from Yorkshire. They 
started with their horses from the King's Head, a well known 
tavern at the corner of Chancery Lane which afterwards be- 
came notorious as the place of the incubation of the disre- 
putable Titus Oates plot. 

On his way north Sir Miles stopped four nights at 
Wolverton with Lady Longueville, whose daughter he married 
for his second wife more than twenty years later. 

In 1663 Sir Miles v/as again in London. On this occasion 
he rode with a servant in attendance. Both the horses were 
sold on their reaching town. After a sojourn of three weeks 
he returned, buying good horses for the journey north. The 
astute Yorkshireman reckoned that he had cleared 5J. by 
this transaction, in addition to saving the keep of two horses 
for the three weeks. 

In 1669 Sir Miles Stapleton spent seven weeks in London. 
On this occasion he proceeded to London by the hackney 
coach from Doncaster, securing a place on May 26 for {ji. 
His French valet Pullaine rode on horseback by the coach. 
They were four days out on the road, during which time he 
spent on himself and his man another {ji. Pullaine's horse 
for that period cost 135. During this sojourn in town 
he v/as diligent in seeking out amusement. He paid 'for 


seeing the danceing of the ropes in Lincolns in feild/ 4^. ; 
for seeing ' a puppyt-play at Chareing Crosse called Punshio- 
nella/ is. ; for seeing a play at the King's Play House called 
The Genera/, and for another play there called Royall Martir. 
He also lost los, 'at an adventure at the Cavalier's lottery at 
Charing Crosse.' 

As a dutiful husband he kept up a regular correspondence 
with his wife in Yorkshire during his absence, the carriage of 
the letters costing him loj. 3^. The first week of his stay in 
town he boarded with one Mrs. Ascough, paying her for diet 
for himself and man i^s. He made a note that he paid for 
' ordinaryes abroad severall dayes ' 95., 'and the rest of the time 
I eat with my brother Robert Bartye and Lady Sophia.' His 
man PuUaine's diet and expenses at London those days when 
he was not with him amounted to 155. lod. 

Robert Bertie, who succeeded as Earl Lindsey in 1666, 
married for his first wife Mary, second daughter and co-heir 
to John Massingberd of the city of London, a merchant of the 
East India Company. Through his wife Earl Lindsey had a 
town house in Queen Street, and it was there that Sir Miles 
lodged with his nephew during this visit to town. During 
his sojourn he thrice paid visits to his sister-in-law Lady 
Sophia Shipman at Richmond, his charges by water there and 
back amounting to i^s. Another short journey that he took, 
involving absence for a night, was to Guildford and back in 
order to conclude his business with Mr. Theakeston about his 
Bedale property. He paid for two places in the ' Gilford 
coatch ' to and from London for himself and his lawyer Mr. 

In the autumn of the same year Lady Stapleton travelled 
to London in the family coach, and was absent about a month. 
This absence and its total cost is thus summarized by Sir 
Miles in his carefully kept household ledger for 1669 : — 

It. Paid in chardges for my wife's goeing to Lond. with my £ s. d. 
bro. Rich. Sept. 4th 1669, and they had the coatch and 
four horses, and Mrs. Barber with my wife and bro. in 
the coatch, and Mich, the coatchman, and John PuUaine, 
and Thos. Stephenson on horseback, soe as they had six 
horses in all and were almost a month out in all, being 
back a day or two before Mich, day, their chardges in all 
came to 40 00 00 

The expenditure on later visits to town are for the most 
part summarized after a like fashion. 




Sir Miles rode to town for a brief visit in 1682. One 
result was the following expenditure on clothes : — 

It. Paid to Arrundell Bradshaw of the exchainge in the Strand /. d. 

for a new morning gowne and capp for my selfe . . . 03 16 00 
It. Paid to Mr. Legate June the 3rd 1682 for a new cloth 

suite which he got made for me at London by Mr. Peter 

Tay a taylor, for cloth, lineing, triming and makeing in 

all according to the particular of the bills he sent me in all 06 02 03 

It. Paid more then for a paire of silke stockings 00 10 00 

It. Paid more then for a sword knott 00 04 04 

It. Paid more then for a box to bring them downe in and for 

the carriage of them by the hackney coatch 00 06 03 

It. Paid more Mr. Legate's chardges about buyinge my clothes 

and given the Taylors man &c 00 04 02 

It. Paid to the hackney coatch man for bringinge my clothes 

from London to Yorke June 19th 1682 00 04 06 

It would seem that Sir Miles' last visit to town was in 
1704. He was then an old man. There were no further 
purchases of gay or fashionable clothing. The only special 
expenditure entered in the household books is 3^. 6^. *for 
hippocondraicke powder bought at London.' 


Certain parts of the western block of present house at 
Carlton date back to the rebuilding planned by Sir Miles 
Stapleton's grandfather, which was ended in 16 14. In a deed 
of 1 63 1, making some provision for his children, Sir Miles' 
father describes it as a domus mansionalis or manioralis. Extensive 
alterations and additions by Mr. Pugin, which were finished 
in 1875, included the erection of two lofty towers ; hence its 
present name of Carlton Towers.-^ 

Sir Miles when entering Carlton Hall had not much occa- 
sion to interfere with or amend the house so recently built, 
save an expenditure of on flooring and fire-places ; but 
there are occasional later entries relative to it, of which the 
more important are transcribed. Reference has already been 
made to the new chapel and adjoining chamber and closets 
constructed in the gallery in 1668. 

The first entry, in 1661, is one of the many tokens of 
his special affection for his first wife. 

^ A drawing is given of Carlton Hall before Pugin's restoration, in Mr. 
Chetwynd-Stapyl tone's family history, p. 164. 


Inp. Paid to Mr. Kettlewell at the glasse shop at York for 16 ^ s. 
marble stones for the stone-head-chamber chimley where 
my wife is to lye in childe bed, being nine inches square 
and halfe of them white and the other halfe blacke . , 01 05 00 

It. Paid to Bartle Rimere for pollishing the said sixteen marble 

stones 00 12 00 

It. Paid for a baskett to put them in and for carrying them to 

the boat 00 01 00 

It. Paid for bringing them and some other little things by 

water from York to Newland when I fetched them . , 00 03 00 

Early in 1663, the new baronet caused his crest to be raised 
on the turret of his mansion. 

It. Paid to Nestor of Selbye the white smith for makeing new £^ s. d. 

faine being cutt with a Talbott for the high top territt . 00 16 00 
It. Paid to Joseph Robinson for guilding the faine with leafe 

gold and helpeing to set it upp 00 14 00 

In the same year care was taken to secure the glazing of 
the higher parts of the house. 

It. Paid more to Nestor for two new great Iron casements for s. d, 

the litle roome within the great middle territ . . . . 00 10 00 

It. Paid more to him for 24 litle Iron barrs to hold on the 
glasse in high topp territt and for 500 stubs to naile on 
the glasse in the lower great middle territt or Lantherne. 00 04 03 

The entry of 1676 relative to the re-leading of the roofs 
is an example of the close attention he paid to pecuniary 
matters, which is the special characteristic of these household 

Imp. paid for a fother of lead wch Mr. John Wood of York £ s. d, 
bought there for me in September for mending the leads 
of Carleton house at eleven pounds, and 20 hundred 
weight to the fother and every hundred weight is six 
score and three pounds which is much better than the 
Marchants weight which is but 19 hundred and halfe 
pounds to the hundred soe as this wee have now is called 
traine weight for which I have paid eleven pounds and is 
cheaper then Marchants weight at ten pounds . . . . 1 1 00 00 

Immediately to the south of Carlton Hall were the wide 
waters of the river Aire, a tributary near to its mouth of the 
Ouse. Over the Aire it was incumbent on the lord of Carlton 
to maintain a ferry. The ferry-house often called for Sir 
Miles' attention. It was rebuilt in 1 662 at a cost of is. ^d. 
The following are some of the items: — 


It. Anthony Wilson the carpenter for puUinge downe the ould £^ s. d. 

ferry house and makeing a new roofe and rearing it in all 02 08 02 

It. Paid more to Anthony Wilson for makeing the in walls and 

pertitions in the house with doores &c 00 16 02 

It. Paid to two thatchers of Kensall for each seven dayes thatch- 
ing the house at each \s. zd. a day 00 16 04. 

The ferry house was damaged in the winter of 168 1-2 by 
part of the river bank giving way. 

It. Paid more to Rich. Boyars and John Browne for filling up £^ s. d. 
the hole in the ferry house kitching w^^ was worne when 
the end of the house was driven away with a gail there the 

1 6th day of January 1681 and mended in 1682 . . . X)0 12 00 

In 1 668, a house on the estate termed 'Petronells ould 
house ' was entirely rebuilt at a total cost of £6() 35. 9^. It 
was a timber framed house, and the carpenter was paid £12 is, 2d, 
^ for frameing and building the new house of timber and seting 
it upp and laying three chamber fioores, making staires parti- 
tions and doores and all other wood worke.' Nails, laths, 
plaster, thatch, glass, etc., brought the expenditure up to 
;£43 8j. 9^. The bricks for the chimneys were made on the 
estate, and the timber was felled in Sir Miles' woods ; the 
estimate of the value of these materials, together with the 
draughts for leading them is entered at ;^25 155. 

In 1702 the roofs of Baxter Hall, on Sir Miles' property 
at Drax, were renewed being much decayed ; the walls were 
lowered and the garret windows in the roof taken away. The 
cost of these repairs was £12 55. 

The entries with regard to a pump for Carlton Hall, in 
1664, are sufficiently curious to warrant their insertion in 

Inp. Paid to Mr. Fishwicke Mr. Walmsley Stuard for a great £ s. d, 
cake tree out of Thorpe Parke contayinge 27 foot of 

timber, for making the pump in the yard, where the trow 

well was 01 6 00 

It. Paid to Nicholas Loftus the pump maker for boarding the 

pump tree being 8 yards long at \s. a yard o I 1 2 00 

It. Paid more to him for Iron work 00 01 00 

It. Paid more to him for boareing the bottom of the well to get 

a better springe 00 02 00 

It. Paid more to him for another box to keepe in readiness 

when the other failes 00 01 06 

It. Paid to Sam Ainley the joyner for one days work plaineing 

the head of the pumpe 00 10 00 

It. Paid for 15 stone of chalke to put in the bottom of the 

well when the pump was put in to make the water better 00 02 06 




It. Paid to Robt. Hood the smith for Iron work about the £ s. d. 

pump and for a hooke to draw up the sucking with . . 00 1 3 00 
It. Given to Nicholas Loftus the pumpe maker to drink . . 00 01 00 
It. Paid to a painter for colouring the pump and layinge it in 

oyle w'^^ we did these several times 00 04 00 

It. Paid Mounsier and Stephen chardges to Selbye to fetch the 

long womble for boareing the bottom of the well . . . 00 00 08 
It. Given to Captaine Pockleys man to drinke y* helpt my men 

when they went with my draught to fetch the pumpe tree 

from Thorpe Parke 00 01 00 

It. My owne men and draught fetching the pumpe butt from 

Thorpe Parke to Carleton house 00 03 00 

It. Paid to John Pearse for one day and a halfe helping the 

pumpe maker to set the pumpe 00 01 06 

The pumpe cost in all 04 10 02 


The occasional items of furnishing and upholstering for 
Carlton Hall, together with the supply of household utensils 
mentioned in these books, are of some interest as denoting 
the price and kind of articles then deemed suitable for a 
country gentleman's house. When Sir Miles entered into 
possession of Carlton House, in 1659, the largest item of his 
expenditure was ^^^47 for tapestry, which is described as 'a 
suit of hangings of seven pieces, in cumpas 30 yardes and a 
halfe, and in depth 12 foot/ A dozen 'high chair frames 
backes and seates stuffed and covered with canvis for the 
dineing parlour,' cost ;£3, whilst the coloured baize for cover- 
ing them cost {ji. Six low chairs, two French chairs, and a 
long seat for the drawing-room, covered with green baize, 
together with ^ window curtain and a carpet, cost los, 2'^- 

There was a considerable outlay in chamber furniture in 
1663 • — 

It. Paid then to Mr. Padgett of York the mercer for foure £ j. d, 
and fortye yards of french green broad paddua searge at 
3 J. 6d. 2l yard for covering the bed stead and chairs in 

the staire head chamber'^ 07 14 00 

It. Paid then more to Mr. Padgett for foure yards of grasse 

green buckram for binding the bed ballance . . . . 00 05 04 
It. Paid then more to Mr. Padgett for an ounce and a halfe of 

silke to make the bed with 00 02 06 

It. Paid then for brasse nailes to make the chairs with . . . 00 03 00 

It. Paid then for three courting rods for the bed 00 03 00 

It. Paid then to Robert Wright of York the silk weaver for 
eleven ounces and a halfe of green silk fringe for making up 
the bed and chairs in staire head chamber, at zs, an ounce. 01 03 00 



It. Paid for bringing the bedstead and chaires by water from £ s. d. 
York to Carleton ferrye 00 02 00 

It. Paid more for brasse nailes for the chaires 00 02 00 

It. Paid more to Robt. Wright the silk weaver for twelve 
ounces and three quarters of green silk fringe for making 
up the bed, and chairs, at 2 shillings an ounce. . . . 01 05 06 

Inp. Paid to Francis Rhodes of Yorke the upholdster for one 
new bedstead for the staire head chamber, June the 15 th, 
1663 01 06 00 

It. Paid then more to Francis Rhodes for foure low chairs 

stuffed and covered with canvass 01 00 00 

It. Paid then more to Francis Rhodes for 24 yards of course 
mattin for staire head chamber and clossett at \d. a 
yard 00 08 00 

The following expenditure was incurred in 1688 : — 

It. Paid its Robert Rhodes of York the upholster for seaven s. d. 
peeces of tapestry hanging for my wifes chamber . . . 24 00 00 

It. Paid to him for packing up the hangings and bringing 

them from Yorke to Selbye by water . 00 05 00 

It. Paid then more to him for two pieces of narrow dyaper for 
napkins each peece containing 1 3 yards for a dozen of 
napkins, at u. a yard, which comes to a peece soe as 
two peeces for two dozen of napkins cost 01 08 00 

It. Paid to Tho. Wherry the stock-man for 26 yards of 
huggabagg for makeing two dozen of table napkins at 
IS. ^d, a yard abaiting 8 pence 01 14 00 

In the winter of lyoo-i, there was considerable expendi- 
ture for the kitchen, etc. : — 

Inp. Paid to young Richard Scholey, the blacke smith the £ s. d. 
1 2th day of December 1700 for altering and making 

new the great Iron Rainge in Kitchen chimley. . . . 04 00 00 
It. Paid for a peece of staynd Indian callicoe for a carpet for 

my closet table 00 03 06 

It. Paid for nine yards of fine Indian staynd callicoe at 2S. ^d. 

a yard 01 04 09 

It. Paid for nine yards and three quarters of cotton for smooth- 
ing cloth at IS. 2d, a yard 00 1 1 07 

It. Paid for 20 yards of linen cloth at Snaith for sheets at 

IS. ^d. a yard 01 05 00 

It. Paid to John Taylor for one large brass pott to boyle meat in o i i o 00 

It. Paid for two hand brass candlesticks for Ann Barber . . 00 02 04 

It. Paid for two pairs of lardge brass candlesticks . . . . 00 1 1 06 

It. Paid for mending an oulde brass candlestick at Yorke . . 00 01 06 
It. Paid for 200 small brass nailes for mending stooles and 

chaires 00 01 00 

It. Paid for two brass candlesticks 00 04 00 

It. Paid for six new lowe brass candlesticks for the Aulter . . 00 09 00 


It. Paid to Edward Seller of Yorke the brazier for one lardge £ s. 
upper boiler for seting in the kitching in a furnase to 

boyle meat in, January the 1 8 th 1700 04 13 00 

A good stock of pewter was laid in in 1664 ; but by the 
close of the century it required replenishing : — 

It. Paid for two dozen of puter plates and one plate w*^'* John £ s. d. 
and Nan Barber bought at York December the 14th 

1664 at \s. 6d. a pound and they weighed 37 pound. . 02 15 06 
It. Paid then for six lardge puter platters or dishes at is. jd. a 

pound and they weighed 57 pound and a halfw^*^ comes to 04 01 05 

It. Paid then more for one gallon puter can and six porringers 00 19 06 

It. Paid then more for two puter stands for the table . . . 00 08 00 

It. Paid then more for two puter candlestickes ... . . . 00 05 00 

It. Paid then more for two lease puter candlestickes . . . . 00 03 06 

It. Paid then more for one puter chamber pott 00 03 06 

It. Paid then more for one puter salt for the pantrye . . . 00 01 00 
It. Paid then more for six puter spoons for the pantrye . . 00 00 09 
It. Paid then for a paire of snuffers for the parlour . . . . 00 o I 00 
It. Paid for cording for the puter and carrying it to the water- 
side 00 00 06 

It. Paid to a boat man of Thorne for bringing the puter from 
York by water to Donmouth new hall fleet when we 

fetched it * 00 01 00 

It. Paid to William Hutchinson of Yorke the puterer the 15th 
of August 1 70 1 , for 17 new puter dishes for the table 

weighing 74 pounds at 12 pence a pound 03 14 09 

It. Paid then more for two dozen of new puter plates . . . 01 1 2 00 

It. Paid then more to him for 5 new chamber potts . . . . 00 1 5 00 

It. Paid then more to him for 3 new puter basins . . . . 00 05 00 
It. Paid then more to him for a new close stoole pan 5^. ^d. 

and 9<^. for mend a dish 00 06 01 

Inp. Paid to Hutchinson of York the puterer Aug. the 1 1 th 

1702, for two dozen of new puter plates for the table . 01 10 00 
It. Paid then more to him for one dozen of puter spoons for 

the pantrye of hard mettle GO 03 00 

It. Paid to Ruben Coolson, August the 12th 1704 for two 

dozen of puter plates for the table at 1 5 shillings a dozen 01 I o 00 

In 1682 Sir Miles had his portrait, and that of his lady, 
painted and framed, on what appears to be exceedingly mode- 
rate terms : — 

Inp. Paid to Mr. Timothy Stephenson for drawing my wife's £ s. d, 

picture, Jan. 5th 1682 04 00 00 

It. Paid then more to Mr. Tim. Stephenson for drawing my 

own picture 03 00 00 

It, Paid then more to Mr. Tim. Stephenson for the two frames 
of my wifes picture and mine for each five and twenty 

shillings soe as both cost 02 I o 00 


It. Paid for a fir box for bringing the two pictures in from £ s. d. 
York to Carleton oo 04 oo 

It. Paid more to Mr. Timothy Stephenson for drawing my 
picture w^^ I gave and presented to Mrs. Fairefax, w'^ 
with the frame in all cost 04 05 00 


Sir Miles was ever ready to encourage local or itinerant 
players and musicians to entertain the household at Carlton, 
as well as when he was away from home. In July, 1661, 
when tarrying with his brother Errington in the north, he 
contributed 3J. to the 'musicke/ In the following year he 
had occasion to stay for the night at an inn at Durham, when 
he gave is. 'to the Landlord's daughter playing on the 
virginalls.' In Easter week of the same year he gave to 
Joseph Robinson and the Selby players loj. 'for playing the 
play called Musidorus/ Mucedorus and Amadine was a comedy 
frequently acted at the Globe and at Whitehall ;i-it was first 
published in 1598, and had passed through eleven editions by 

The gaieties of Christmas-tide 1 662, were duly observed by 
the newly-made baronet at Carlton. The following entries 
in his accounts show that he did his best to make it a bright 
season for his neighbours : — 

It. Given to two fidlers of Selbye that was here one day in ^ s. d. 
Christmas when I had invited some neighbours to 
diner 00 02 00 

It. Given to Bartle Fular and his boy who was here fidling two 
days in Christmas when I invited some neighbours and 
tenants to diner 00 03 00 

It. Given to Will. Peares and the rest of our neighbours of 
Carleton when they played their play in the house on 
Tuesday, December the 30th, 1662, the play is called 
the gentle craft 00 10 oo 

It. Given to some mumers y came in Christmas . . . . cx) 00 06 

It. Given to Nicholas Daniell and the rest of the players y 
came from about Beedall when they played their two 
playes here on Friday night, January the 23rd, 1662 
(3) one of the playes was the tragadye of Baitman and 
the other was called the courageous generall. . . 01 00 00 

The Gentle Craft or the Shoemaker s Holiday was a play 
by Thomas Deaker, first printed in 1638. ^he Tragedy of 
Bateman was probably another name for The Fair Maid of 
Bristol^ by John Day, first played before the king and given at 



Hampton in 1605. The Courageous General was probably 
ne General^ a tragi-comedy by James Shirley ; Pepys saw it 
acted in 1669 and was pleased with it. 

The accounts for 1664 contain various entries relative to 
entertainments. The following are all of this year : — 

It. Given then to Marmaduke Grainge and his son and £^ s. d. 
daughter Pearson and their boy for playing on the 
musicke that time when wee were all merry together 
at Will Lodge 00 07 00 

It. Given to a trumpeter y came and sounded his trumpett . 00 o i 00 

It. Given to a poore fidler y came in Christmas and was here 

two or three dayes &c 000206 

It. Given to PoUington players y played the shepherdes play . 00 05 00 

It. Given to Rickall players y played the play here called 

wilye beguilee in Christmas 00 i o 00 

It. Given to Nickolas Daniell and the players that came from 
about Beedall January the 19th, 1664 (5) for playing 
two playes here, the one called the two constant lovers, 
and the other called a maidens head well lost . . . o i o i 00 

It. Given to Selbye musicke y came beging March the 1 1 th . 0000 06 

The cultivation of the dramatic art at this period in the 
small towns and large villages of Yorkshire is not a little remark- 
able. The actors were no mere country mummers, for the 
plays chosen were all ones of some repute. T^he Shepherd' s 
Holiday was a pastoral tragi-comedy which had been presented 
before their Majesties at Whitehall by the queen's servants in 
1635 ; the author was Joseph Rutter, a dependent of the 
family of Lord Dorset, and a playwright of some experience. 
Wily Beguiled was ^ a pleasant comedy,' of which there are 
four editions extant between 1606 and 1638. 'The Two 
Constant Lovers was probably another name for The Constant 
Maid, by James Shirley, first published in 1 640. A Maiden- 
head Well Lost was a comedy by that well-known early 
dramatist Thomas Heywood ; it was first acted at the Cock- 
pit, Drury Lane, in 1633. 

The following are some of the later entries of expendi- 
ture in the like direction : — 

It. Given to Beedale players when they acted here January 1 1 th ^ s. d. 
Sir John Dauncy and his company and Sir Tho. 
Yarbrough and his being here y night and the play is 
called a girl worth gold 00 1 5 00 

It. Given to John Gilliver and three more fidlers for being 
here three nights when Sir John Dawncy and my Ladye 
and Sir Tho. and the rest were here . . . . . 00 1 2 00 


1673 , £ d. 

It. Given to John Miller sister for playing on the virginalls . 00 02 00 

It. Given to Selbye fidlers at Christmas 1702 00 10 00 

It. Given then more to PoUington fidlers 00 02 06 

Sir Miles was not superior to attractions of a less refined 
character than music and the drama. When in London in 
1657 he paid a shilling 'for seeing the foure children at a 
birth/ and fifteen pence 'for seing showes in Bartlemeu faire.' 
At a later visit (1670) the special attractions of this celebrated 
Smithfield carnival which drew two shillings from the baronet's 
pockets were a puppet play, a ' spotted woman/ and ' three 
hairey Indians one being in chaines.* On another occasion 
when passing through Doncaster a penny was paid to see a 
pig with two heads ! 


The entries for provisions and stores in these household 
accounts are far fewer than might at first be expected. But it 
must be recollected that all such things as meat and poultry, 
bread, dairy and garden produce would be provided by the 
estate, and would naturally not find a place in these books, 
as they did not involve any ready money payment. 

Five guineas were paid for extras preparatory to the 
Christmas feasting of 1664. 

Paid to John Hornbyee wife March the 3rd 1664 her bill £, d 
for sugar, rasins, currans, prunes, and nutmegs, ginger, 
mace, cloves, cinamon and pepper which my wife bought 
of her against Christmas 1664 for using in the house 
&c 550 

In 1668 ' 7 leamons and an orrange* cost \s, id. 
There are entries in 1697 telling of the price of soap, 
which varied from 4J. 4^. to \s, 6d. a stone. In 1700 a 
Cheshire cheese weighing 151b. was bought for 4J. 6d, 
Two hundred chestnuts were bought at York the same year 
for lod. In 1701 twenty-two stone of salt were purchased at 
15, 4.d. a stone, and 71b. of starch at 2^- ^ lb. Oranges were 
a good deal lower, two dozen being bought at York for 2s, ; 
but soap had risen to ^s, 2d, a lb. Six lemons were purchased 
in 1 702 for 3i. In the same year a quarter of veal 3 6d, 

Presents in kind were not infrequent, the bearers, as is 
now the case, invariably obtaining an acknowledgment. Thus 
in 1676, 6d, was given to Lady Dawnay's page ^for 


bringing my wife some strawberries.' Two years later, Lady 
Winge of NostalFs keeper received 75. 6^. for bringing half a 
buck ; Sir John Dawnay's gardener is.y for bringing Lady 
Stapleton two melons from his lady ; and ' Cosen Perepont's ser- 
vant that brought us a hansh of venson from Pomfrett from his 
maister/ 2s, 6d, In 1682 Sir Thomas Yarbrough's man had is. 
' when his maister sent me a side of salmon ' ; and ' Mrs. 
Watkinson's maid is, that brought oysters from her mistress 
to my wife.* Sir Thomas Yarbrough's gardener had is, in 
1688 for bringing cherries ; and Lord Donne's man 2s. for 
bringing half a buck on August 2, 1 704. 

The purchase of fish, particularly for use in Lent, was fre- 
quent. The following are the more interesting of these 
entries : — 


It. Paid more to John Hornbye for sixteen couples of linge for £ s. d. 

using in the house in lent 02 lo oo 

It. Paid more to John Hornbye for one hundred of herrings 

for lent also 00 04 00 

It. Paid more to John Horn bye for one single linge . . . . 00 01 04 

In 1668 'seventeen couple of codd fish for using in Lent' 
were purchased at is, ^d, a lb., together with 400 white her- 
rings for 1 3 J. 4^., and 300 red herrings for 95. Twenty years 
later 9 stone of ling were purchased at 2 35., for a like purpose, 
as well as 450 herrings at i8j. The Lent purchases of 1696 
were i61b. of dried ling at 3^. a lb., 100 red herrings at 
y, ^d, ; and 6 couple of cod fish at los, lod. 

The fish for Lent in 1700 were purchased at Bedale. 

It. Paid to Robert Berry of Beedall for 60 lardge dryed linge £ s. d, 

and cod fish 04 19 00 

It. Paid more to him for 60 dryed whiteings 00 05 00 

It. Paid for the carriage of the salt fish from Beedall to Yorke 00 03 08 

In 1704 the fish for Lent, consisting of dried cod, ling 
and herrings, were bought at York, and cost i6j. 

Two salmon were bought in 1698 for 7^. 6^., and one in 
1 704 for 3 J. A turbot purchased at Snaith in 1 702 cost 2^. 

The capture of sturgeon in the Aire and Ouse are well 
worthy of being chronicled. The first of these records 
occurs in 1676, when lOJ. was — 

given amongst the fishermen and others at Selbye that got a great sturgeon 
there which Mr. Walmley gave betwixt my wife and Mrs. Pockley who gave 
them Twenty shillings amongst them whereof my moitye. 


In 1696 a small sturgeon was caught in the Aire, for 
which Sir Miles gave 14J. In the same year 'a bigger 
sturgeon' was caught by Leafer of Barmby in the Ouse, on 
June 2I5 for which 20J. was paid ; and a third ^very small 
sturgeon' was also bought for 9J. 6d. On June 10, 1698, 
1 3 J. was paid to ^ Leafer of Barmby for one sturgeon taken 
over against the laine house sands nere Drax.' Two more 
sturgeon were caught in the Aire in 1704, for which Sir Miles 
paid 27J. It was the custom to pickle these great fish ; on 
one occasion Sir Miles paid the large sum of 22s. 2d. ' to the 
cooke at Yorke for dressing the sturgeon and sousing it.' 

It is not to be expected that details with regard to the 
gardens would find their way into these household books of 
account ; but at all events the gardens of the squire of Carlton 
produced far more than the * cabbages and gooseberries ' of 
Macaulay fame. Incidentally, in connection with expenses in 
purchasing, pruning, or gathering, mention is made of apples, 
pears, plums, cherries, strawberries, and even nectarines and 
apricots. In 1702 there was sufficient refinement for 
/i i8j. \d. to be spent in the construction of a melon and 
cucumber frame : — 


Xnp. Paid to Richard Mawhood for 4 deales for makeing a frame 
for the garden, to be glassed for preserving IVIellons and 

It. Paid to Richard Birth for glass for this fram for Mellons . 

It. Paid more for deales for another frame for Mellons . 

It. Paid more to Richard Birth for glass for this frame for 


The entries relative to wine are varied, and show that Sir 
Miles kept a generous table. In 1661 he paid lu. for a 
' runlit of clarett wine.' 

Two entries for the year 1673 may be cited in full : — 

It. Paid to S Stephen Thompson of York the 28th of No- £^ s. d. 
vember for six gallons of white wine, and five gallons and 
a halfe of clarret wine for bottling and using in the house 
at three shillings a gallon CII416 

It. Paid then more to S'" Stephen Thompson for one gallon, 
three quarts and a pinte of canary sack at eight shillings a 
gallon 00 1 5 CO 

CO 05 04 

CO 1 2 CO 

CO c6 c6 
00 14 c6 


In 1678 * sherry e sacke' was purchased at York, and 
small quantities of claret and white wine of Samuel Halliday 
of Turnbridge at u. a quart. ' Canary sack ' was purchased 
the same year at York at 3J. a gallon, and two quarts and a 
gill of ' Reynish wine * at 3^. ^d. 

Sir John Dawnay and Sir Thomas Yarburgh played for 
three nights at Carlton in 1668, when two gallons of white 
wine at is. a gallon, and 21s, worth of canary sack at is. 6d, a 
quart were consumed. 

In 1669 Sir Miles purchased canary sack at 55. a gallon, 
and Rhenish wine at the same price, and white wine at 2J. a 
gallon. In 1676 he bought of Sir Stephen Thompson of 
York 14 gallons and 3 quarts of white wine and claret at 35. 
a gallon ' for using in the house * ; as well as small quantities 
of canary sack at 2s, a gallon, and Rhenish wine at 35., which 
was apparently consumed at York. In the same year Palson 
of York supplied him with 14 gallons of white wine at 35. the 
gallon. In 1688 he bought of Christopher Leggard of York 
half a hogshead of white wine for i oj., and half a hogshead 
of claret at the same price ; paying also los. for the two casks. 
At the end of that year the same order was repeated, together 
with some canary sack, ^ old Rehenish,* and ' young hock,* 
apparently to supply the place of the liquor drunk by the 
Protestant mob. 


Its. Paid to Mr. John Cooke as followeth, £ s. d. 

It. Paid to Mr. John Cooke of Selbye for eight gallons of 

Canary sacke at six shillings a gallon bought at London . 02 08 oo 

It. Paid for a small caske to put the sacke in 00 02 00 

It. Paid for bringing the sacke by sea from London to Selbye . 00 02 00 
It. Paid to Mr. Cooke for two gallons of Canary sacke at Selbye 

July 6th 1700 01 00 00 

It. Paid more then to Mr. Cooke for two gallons of sherry 

sacke at Selbye . . . 00 16 00 

1 70 1 

Inp. Paid to John Cooke of Selbye for one gallon and a halfe 

of white wine at 5/. %d. a gallon 00 08 06 

It. Paid more to John Cooke for two gallons of white and one 

gallon of clarett and a pinte more 00 1 8 06 

It. Paid to Mrs. Stephenson for one quart of Mallegoe sacke . 00 o i 04 
It. Paid to Mr. Stone of Yorke for two quarts of Canary sacke 00 04 00 
It. Paid Mrs. Cooke of Selbye, Sep. i6th 1701, for two gal- 
lons and a halfe of white wine at 6j. a gallon . . . . 00 1 5 00 
It. Paid more to her for one gallon and 3 pints of clarret wine 

at 6/. a gallon 00 08 03 



It. Paid more then to her for 3 quarts of canarye sacke at £ s. d. 

2s. 6d. a quart 00 07 06 

It. Paid for 5 gallons of Canary sacke bought of Mr. Stone of 

York Nov. 29th 1701, at 8 shillings a gallon . . . . 02 00 00 

It. Paid then for a runlit to bring it in 

It. Paid to the boat woman of Selbye for bringing it thither . 00 00 04. 
It. Paid to Mr. Hardwicke of Rawcklife the 22nd of Jan. 

1702, for foure gallons and two quarts of Brandye 2/. 6d. 

a qt 02 05 00 

It. Paid to Mr. Hudson for one pinte of brandye . . . . 00 02 00 
It. Paid to Mr. Hardwicke of RawcklifF, January the 8th 1704, 

for halfe an Anker of brandy w*^^ ought to be 5 gallons, but 
fell short soe as there was little more than 17 quarts in it 02 07 06 


It. Paid more for two bottles of Mountaine white wine at 

Yorke 00 04 00 

It. Paid for a bottle of Mountaine wine from York . . . . 00 02 00 

There must have been continuous brewing at Carlton 
house, but the only references we have noted in the house- 
hold books are the following ones for 1662 and 1703 : — 

Inp. Paid to Rich. Laycock for three quarters of mault brewed 
into stronge beare November the 9th 1662, of which 
was made foure hogsheads of stronge beare and foure of 
ordinary beare and one of small beare 03 1 1 06 

It. Paid then to Thomas Andrew for sixteen pounds of hops for 

the beare at is. ^d. a pound 01 00 00 

It. Paid to Rich. Laycocke of Barlay for makeing me two 

steepeings of Barlye into mault to six quarters . . . . 00 i o 00 

It. Pa id to Mr. Todd of York the grocer for sixteen pounds of 
hops at i^. 4^/. a pound for brewing foure hogsheads of 
March beare w*^^ was made March the 21st 1662, into 
which wee put foure quarters of malt grinded moulter 
free, 2 pecks of wheat, 4 pecks of pease and 4 pecks of oats 01 01 04 


It. Paid to Charles Bossvill for makeing the above said 5 1 

quarters of barly into mault at his kill at is. Sd. a quarter 04 05 00 

It. Paid to Charles Bossvill May 22nd 1703 for makeing three 

quarters of wheat into mault 00 05 00 


These household books are particularly explicit with re- 
gard to Sir Miles' expenditure on his own clothes. They are 
of value as showing the style of dress adopted by country 
gentlemen of those times. Sir Miles' considerable outlay 
on clothes in the Commonwealth period has already been 
given in detail. 


In 1 66 1 he went into court mourning on the death of the 
Duke of Gloucester, spending 25J. 4^. on black ribbon and 
braid to trim a new black suit. His expenditure on dress 
naturally decreased as years went on ; in early life even his 
saddle was trimmed with blue plush silver lace, but in one of 
his last entries he is content to buy holland cloth to cover his 
woollen nightcap. The buying of the heads of hai;: of daugh- 
ters of his tenants to make periwigs is most characteristic. 

1 66 1 £ s, d. 

It. Paid to Mr. Raulison of York for blew plush silver lace, and 

silke and silver fringe for my saddle 030103 

It. Paid to Parker the sadler of York his bill for making up 
my saddle, and for holsters bridle breast girth and cruper 
stiropes and leathers with girths and other necessarys 
in all 02 07 06 

It. Paid for a paire of new white woolen ridinge stockings for 

my selfe 00 1 5 00 

It. Paid for a girdle and six points to tye upp my stockings 

with when I ride 00 02 06 

It. Paid to Mr. Henley of York, June the 20th, 1664, for 
one yard and halfe an ell of fine black Spanish cloth for a 
mourning coat for my selfe, when my poore sister Ering- 
ton dyed, which was the 1st of Aug. 1664. Mem : I 
made my black suit of a black coate that I had before . 02 04 09 
It. Paid then to Mr. Horsefield my Taylor his bill for making 
up my blacke mourning suit and coat with all lining and 

other things 021806 


Imp. paid to a man of Yorke for mending and puting some 

haire into my browne periwigg but he has spoyled it . . 00 1 5 00 
It. paid to Peg. Heavisides for her head of haire w'^'^ I got of 

her towards making me a perriwigg but it is too short . 00 02 06 
It. paid for a new periwig w*^^ my man John Pullaine bought 

for me at Yorke june the 8th 02 10 00 

It. Paid to Mr. Morland of York the habberdesher for a white 

demicastor edgd with silver gallowne 01 02 06 

It. Paid then to him for a silver hat band 00 05 06 

It. Paid more to Mr. Hillary the mercer july the 22nd 1673 

his bill for black ribbon for triming my Pantaloon britches 

and for buttons and other things for them . . . . . 04 1 3 00 
It. Paid more to Mr. Horsfield his bill for altering my farren- 

den britches, and makeing them Panteloons 00 05 00 

It. Paid for two yards and three quarters of Scotch cloth to 

make halfe a dozen night handcherchiefs for my selfe . . 00 04 10 

In 1668 he paid £,() 9J. 8^. for a coat of fine Spanish 
cloth at 2 1 J. per yard, lined with flowered silk. A 'new 


sword belt wrought with silver twist * cost 1 6s.y and a new 
perriwig, £2 15J. 

In the same year he bought yards of camlett at 2s, 4^. 
for a riding cloak, £1 is, ; and of Hewley of York 5 yards 
of fine Spanish sad colourd cloth at 55. a yard for vest, 
coat and breeches, is, 6d, Mr. Robt. Horsfield of York 
for lining, trimming and ribbon and making of the suit 
charged £() 1 5 J. A ^ riding velvet capp ' cost 1 7 j., and 1 2 
yards of ' red scaflett ribbin,' 55. 6d, 

In 1676 he bought ' 2 J yds. of fine broad mixt gold 
coullourd Spanish cloth ' at 20J. a yard for coat and breeches, 
£1 lis, 6d. ; the trimming, lining, ribbin, silk and buttons 
cost £^ i8j., and the making up 105. He also gave 'to 
the tailors men to drinke is,' 

His purchases for 1682 included a long periwig at £1 5^., 
and a short riding periwig at i ^s. 

In 1688 he paid to Mrs. Hillary for 2^ yards of fine 
cloth for a coat at 1 8 j. a yard, £1 55. ; 8 yard and halfe of 
sad coloured shagreen at 4J. 4^. a yard for lining the coat, 

1 6s, lod. ; also 11 dozen of silke buttons at 8<3^. a dozen 
for the coat, 75. ^d. 

At the same time he bought ' 3|- yds. of rich flowred 
velvet at 13J. a yard for a pr. of britches for myself £1 55. 6^.,' 
and a dozen of gold small buttons and 2 gt. ones, is, 8^. ; also 
a pair of long silk stockings for 13J., and a pair of worsted 
stockings, 6s, 6d, The lining, the pockets, the stays and the 
making brought the total expenditure to £% 15J. 3^. 

In 1696 Sir Miles paid — 

for a new blacke beaver hatt w*^^ John Reynold bought for me at £ s. d. 
London 02 15 00 

paid to Tho. Harrison the Milliner for 4 yards and half a 

quarter of silke mantua for lining my waistcoat. . . . 01 06 00 

It. Paid to Mr. Cayne for a new periwigg for my selfe Aprill 

1697 02 07 06 

It. Paid to Glows daughter of Beedall for the haire of her 
head w^^ I bought on her to make me a periwigg, May 
14th, 1697 00 II 06 

It. Paid to Mr. Caine March the ist 1697(8) for a new periwigg 
for my selfe, besides a head of haire which I bought that 
cost me halfe a guinay and he added more haire to it, soe 
that I paid him ^^i \']s. 6d. and 1 1 shillings for the head 
of haire I bought, made it in all £2 8j. 6d., of w*^^ I paid 
to Mr. Caine 01 17 06 

It. Paid then to Mr. Caine for two pounds of fine haire powder 00 03 00 



It. Paid then to Mr. Caine for one bottle of essence for haire . 00 03 06 
Inp. Paid to Mr. Crofts for periwig for my selfe, March the 

4th 1705 03 00 00 

It. Paid to Mr. Agar of York 15th of March 1705 for 5 yards 

and a quarter of cloth at 1 8 shillings a yard for a coat, 

britches, and waist coat for my selfe 04 14 06 

It. Paid then to Mr. Tho. Harrison for shalloon for lineing for 

my coat and waist coat 00 16 oa 

It. Paid then to Mr. Redman for triming for my clothes . , 00 lo 09 

It. Paid then more for buttons and skins and thread .... 00 06 oa 
It. Paid to Mr. Favell for 9 yards and a halfe of damaske for a 

morning gowne for my selfe 00 1 1 o i 

It. Paid for 9 yards and a halfe for lining the gowne . . . 00 08 08 

There are no entries in these books as to the wearing 
apparel of the first Lady Stapleton, who doubtless had her own 
pin money for the purpose. To his second wife Sir Miles 
made the then handsome allowance of {fio a year ' for her 
weareing Apparrel and other necessaryes.' In addition he 
frequently made her presents, of which the following entries 

are examples : — 

It. Paid for a morning gowne at Yorke for my wife at Whit- £ s. d. 

suntide 1688 03 00 00 

It. Paid for a white hood at Yorke w*^*^ I gave to my wife 30th 

Apr. 1688 00 03 00 

It. Paid for some pins w*^^ I bought for my wife 00 01 08 

It. Paid for an Indyan fine flourished night raile and apron, 

bought at the doore, July 6th 1700 and given to my wife 00 02 06 
It. Paid for two yards of fine plaine mussleing given to my wife 00 06 00 
It. Given to my wife one guinay, November 25th 1700 . . 01 01 06 
It. Given to my wife one guinay for a new years giuft Jan. the 

1st 1700, New Years day 01 01 06 

It. Paid for 4 yards of staynd Indian callicoe for a morning 

gowne for my wife 00 1 1 00 

It. Paid more for some of the same Indian callicoe to finish 

morning gowne 00 08 00 

It. Given to my wife January the 12th 1700 (i),one litle silver 

porringer 00 12 00 

It. Given to my wife January 24th 1700 (i) five pounds in 

ould broad Edward shillings 05 00 00 

It. Given to my wife one broad Jacobus peece the 5 th of 

Aprill 1702 01 05 06 

It. Given more to my wife the 24th of July 1702 at her goe- 

ing to York, etc., 3 guinays and one Luidore . . . . 04 o i 06 
It. Sent or given more to my wife one guynay by Mr. Baits . 01 01 06 

It. Given more to my wife when abroad 01 01 06 

It. Given more to my wife the 29th of August 1702, two 

guineas and fourteen shillings, in all 02 17 00 



It. Given more to my wife the 27th of Sep' 1702 one Luidore £ s. d. 

and one halfe guinay 01 07 09 

It. Given to my wife one five guynay peece of gold, March the 

1st 1704 05 07 06 

Sir Miles' nephew and heir, Nicholas Errington, was 
married in 1682. He had four children, Nicholas, Gregory, 
Mary (Moll), and Betty. They lived at Carlton, and during 
the latter part of his life old Sir Miles not only provided them 
with clothes, etc., but entered the details among his accounts, 
as the household books often bear witness. 

Inp. Paid May the i8th 1698, to Mr. Thomas Harrison ot £^ s. d. 
Yorke the Mercer, for drugit and other stufFe with line- 
ing shalloone and buttons for new coats, waistcoats and 
britches for litle Nick. Erington and his brother Gregorye 
and new coat and petty coat for their sister Betty Ering- 
ton, in all 03 07 22 

It. Given to my nephew Erington halfe a guinay for New 

Years giuft 00 1 1 00 

It. Given to his daughter Mary for a new years giuft . . . 00 02 06 

It. Given to litle Bettye for a new years giuft 00 01 00 

It. Given to litle Nick for a new years giuft 00 01 00 

It. Given to litle Gregory for a new years giuft 00 00 6 

It. Paid to a Scotch-man feb. 3rd 1698(9) for three musselin 
cravats for thre of the children, vid. Nick. Betty, and 

Gregory 00 07 06 

It. Paid to Thomas Roush of Snaith for 8 yards and a halfe ot 
drugitt at \s. yd. a yard with buttons, silke, canvas, thred 
and tape for two frocks for litle Nick. Erington and his 

bro. Gregory 00 18 00 

It. Paid to Mr. George Hargrave the danceing master, the 
24th of March 1697, for teaching three of my nephew 
Eringtons children, 3 weeks to dance vid. Mary, Nicholas, 

and Betty 02 00 00 

It. Paid to Mick Hessay for a paire of pumps for litle Nick. 

Apr. 14th 1698 00 02 01 

It. Paid more to him for a paire of shous for him . . . . 00 02 02 
It. Paid more to him for a paire of shoues for Moll. Erington . 00 02 02 
It. Paid more to him for a paire of shoues for Bette Erington . 00 01 06 
It. Paid more to him for a paire of shoues for Greg. Erington . 00 01 06 
It. Given to my nephew Eringtons daughter Mary, June 27th 
1 700, in money towards buying some odd necessarys for 

her selfe 01 00 00 

It. Paid for a very fine night raile and apron for Moll Erington 

flourd 00 02 06 

It. Paid to Thomas Wherrye for 4 yards of keating cloth for 

six handkerchiefs for her 00 06 06 

It. Paid more to Thomas Wherrye for 5 yards of holland 

cloth at 2s. 6d. a yard for two shifts for her . . . . 00 1 2 06 


It. Paid for 1 8 yards of stript Indian stuff at 3J. a yard for s. d, 

making her a mantle and petticoat 02 14 00 

It. Paid for one yard of fine musslein for one handkerchiefe 

for her 00 03 00 

It. Paid for two yards of mussleine for a pan for Moll. Eringtons 

head 00 06 00 

It. Paid to Mr. Harrison of Yorke his bill for things for Moll. 

Erington 00 1 5 00 

It. Paid to Mr. Denison his bill for making things for Moll. 

Erington 00 17 06 


It. Paid to John Hinde for makeing petticoats for Mull. Erington 

and trimming her mantoe 00 16 06 

It. Paid for 3 ounces of worsted for mending the childrens 

stockings 00 00 09 

It. Paid for a paire of shoue buckles for litle Nike Erington . 00 00 04 
It. Given in money to Mall. Erington Sep*" 1700 . . . . 00 10 00 
It. Paid to Pegg. Phillitoe for two paire of white stockings for 

Nick, and Gregory Erington 00 02 00 

It. Paid more to Pegg. Phillitoe for other two paire of stockings 

for them 00 02 00 

It. Paid to John Hudson for two new hatts for Nick, and 

Gregory besides 2 they had before 00 1 1 00 

It, Paid for halfe a yard of cloth for a paire of briches for Nicke 

Erington 00 04 00 

Sir Miles Stapleton's livery colour was blue. The chief 
references to livery for his servants were when they were 
provided with handsome cloaks to wait on the high sheriff or 
the judges. The first occasion when four such livery cloaks 
were purchased was in 1661, when his brother-in-law. Sir 
Thomas Osborne (afterwards Duke of Leeds) was sheriff. 

1 66 1 £ s. 4- 

Inp. Paid to Mr. Christopher Howley of York for fourteen 

yards of blew cloth for making four cloaks to waite of 

S""- Thomas Osbourne the high SherifFe at York in lent 

Assizes 1 66 1 16 00 00 

It. Paid to Mr. Rawlison the mercer for 5 ounces of silver lace 

and a quarter for the capes of the 4 cloaks 01 06 03 

It. Paid more to Mr. Rawlinson for 5 yards of ell broad white 

french searge at 5 yard for facing the cloakes . . . . 01 05 00 
It. Paid more to Mr. Rawlinson for two ounces of silke and 

foure longe buttons with silver heads for the cloaks . . 00 09 04 
It. Paid to Robt. Horsefield the taylor for stifining for the 

capes 00 02 00 

It. Paid more to Robert Horsefield for makeinge the foure 

blew livery cloaks 00 i o 00 

The cloaks cost in all 09 12 07 


It. Paid my chardges to York March the 15 th 1661, with my 
foure livery men to waite on the high SherifFe when Judge 
Turner came in, in Assize weeke in lent 1661 and stayed 
there a week which cost me in all in chardges .... 

It. Paid and spent in chardges August 1662 at York being in 
lamas Assizes 1662 when my man John Sotheby went to 
waite of the SherifFe with my foure livery men in their 
cloaks S*"* Thomas Osborne being then high Sheriffe and 
my selfe then at London that I could not waite on him 
at this second Assizes 


Disbursed for Jack Taylor (postilion) riding blue livery coat &c. 

It. Paid to Mr. Sudman of York the 24th of March 1672(3) 
for one yard and three quarters of blue broad cloth . 

It. Paid then Mr. Hillary for 3 yards of yeallow paddua searge 
to line it with 

It. Paid then to Sheriff Horsefield of York the Taylor his bill 
for buttons, lace, silks, stayes, and making the livorey coat 
in all 

Paid to Nill Lodge the 4th of Aprill 1673 his bill for Jack 
Taylor shammoy leather doublett and blue cloth searge 
britches, with buttons, lineings, silk, thread, galloons, 
ferritt ribbon and other things for making them up . 


Paid to Mr. Hillary of Yorke for four livery cloaks with make- 
ing and triming for sending in with Mr. Lowther when 
he was high Sherriff of Yorkshire 

It. Paid for two yards and a halfe of blew cloth for makeing a 
livery coat for Robin Littlewood the postillion and 
another livery coat for John Collins ....... 


Although so staunch to his own religious convictions, Sir 
Miles was broad minded enough to take his share in repairs 
of the places of worship of the Established Church on his 

In 1662 he paid 7^. (id, to repair 'the glasse in our quire 
on the north aisle of Snaith church which has always antiently 
belonged to Carleton house/ In the same year there is an 
entry of giving \s, to Foster the clerk of Bedale for 'shewing 
the church there to my brother Errington and mee/ and he 
several times contributed towards its general repair outside 
any question of rate. 

In 1656 eight shillings were paid for glazing the windows 
of the quire of Carlton chapel. 

In 1688 Sir Miles paid {ji 'to Stephen Sheapard the 

L d. 
04 05 00 

00 15 04 

00 12 00 

00 10 00 

01 01 00 

OI 00 08 

07 12 00 
00 17 06 


bricklayer that rebuilded and repaired the Chappell at Carleton, 
being my owne free gift w*^^ I promised for vaulting the roofe 
with lime and haire on the inside of it/ 

In Mr. Chetwynd-Stapylton's book it is assumed that 
there was no place of public worship at Carlton in old days 
apart from a possible manorhouse chapel ; but there was a 
parochial chapel at Carlton long before Reformation days, 
with burial rights attached in consequence of the separation 
of the township from the parish church by the waters of the 
Aire. Certain members of the Stapleton family were buried 

In 1 70 1 and again in 1704 Sir Miles repaired the quire 
windows of the church of Drax. 

In the household book for 1688 full particulars are entered 
by Sir Miles of the monument that he erected that year in 
Snaith Church to the memory of his first wife. 

Disbursed as followeth for a monum*- makeing in Snaith Church 
for my deare first wife, who was daughter to the Earle of 
Lindsey, who dyed the 28th of february 1683, and this 
monum*- was set up in September 1688. 

Inp. Paid to Mr. Samwell Carpenter of York, the stone-cutter 
for makeing and seting up a Marble Monum*'* in my quire 

or Chappell on the north-side of Snaith Church, Septem- 
ber the 27th 1688, fifty pounds 50 00 00 

It. Paid then more to Mr. Carpenter for paveing over the vault, 
with blacke and white marble on both sides the great 

marble grave-stone 09 00 00 

My wives Monument cost in all 59 00 00 

It. Given to Mr. Carpenters men to drinke when the Monu- 
ment was finished 00 02 06 


The expenditure of this Yorkshire squire on books and 
other literature is singularly interesting and would well bear 
annotating. The exigencies of space forbid however anything 
of this kind being now attempted, and it must suffice to 
simply name his purchases in that direction up to 1660. 

When in town in 1657, he paid ' to the Stationer for two 
bookes the advise to the sonn, and the lifes of the kinges of 
England in brief 2s' In the following year he spent 6d, 
* for the Act against Catholicks/ and the like amount ' for a 
litle boke called S'" Henry Slingsbyes legacy.' He also ex- 


pended ^d, on an almanack for his wife and another for him- 

When the king returned in 1660, Sir Miles made the 
following entries in his accounts: — 

g s. d. 

It. paid for Bakers Cronicle of England 00 i 5 00 

It. paid for a booke called the Royall Buckler 00 02 00 

It. paid for a booke of the kinges escape called Boscobell . . 00 01 00 
It. paid for the Act of Indempnity and several other Acts made 

since the kings coming in 00 03 01 

It. paid for Mathew Hiltons booke called the State of perfec- 
tion 00 02 02 

It. paid for a new manual for myselfe 00 02 06 

It. paid for another book of the kings escape . . . . . . 00 o I 00 

It. paid for the kings declaration about religion 00 01 00 

It. paid for booke of the tryall of the kinges judges . . . . 00 03 00 




THE most sumptuous heraldic book ever issued in Eng- 
land is Mr. W. H. St. John Hope's book of the Stall 
Flutes of the Knights of the Garter. In one direction it is also 
the most important work on the subject. 

English students of heraldry who have seen and admired 
in their originals or their many copies those great rolls of arms 
which survive upon the continent of Europe, and notably in 
Germany and Switzerland, will have realized that although the 
armory of our own medieval artists yields in no particular ot 
beauty or vigour of drawing to that of their foreign rivals, one 
great feature is lacking to us. No single ancient roll of arms 
survives in England in which the shields are topped by the 
crests and mantled helms which play so striking a part in such 
collections as the Zuricher Wappenrolle or the Arlberg Bruder- 
schafts Buche. That such rolls formerly existed in England is 
shown by the rough copy remaining in a Harleian MS. [2076] 
of roll of North Country gentry of the time of Edward IV. 
The crests in these rough trickings show clearly enough that 
they follow an original of the date which we have assigned to 
this roll. In another Harleian MS. [4205], an original book 
of arms of mid-fifteenth century date, we have nearly two hun- 
dred and Mtj figures in colours of knights prancing upon 
horseback with their arms on coats and horse-trappers, but 
although wreaths are twisted about their helmets, no crests 
surmount them. 

Here in Mr. Hope's book in the Garter plates we have 
armorial evidence which, leaving aside one early plate, may be 
said to range from 142 1 to 1485. Not the best period of 
heraldry, to be sure, but one concerning which we have much 
to learn, for the art of heraldry came by many mishaps during 
the tugging times of the Wars of the Roses, and for this 
period we have no roll of arms of the first rate now in exist- 

Mr. Hope's book gives us eighty-nine plates. Of these 

the early plate of Ralph, Lord Bassett of Drayton, is at once 



the largest and finest, and is the only plate of its class. One 
plate may be set aside for another reason, that of Sir Frank van 
Halen being an impudent forgery of Hall the chronicler, who 
chose Sir Frank to be an ancestor of his own. 

Three more achievements are from spoiled or unfinished 
plates found on the reverse of others. Four or five others 
bear foreign arms and are executed under foreign influences, 
so that our roll of arms is reduced to some eighty ex- 

As might be expected these enamellers and metal workers 
of the later middle ages show a notable unconcern of those 
rules of the sacred science of heraldry which were to be laid 
down and arranged by the Tudor heralds. Each point of their 
achievements goes to make this clear. 

The mantles hanging from the helmets are the first things 
to attract remark. The books have laid down that the mantle 
should be formed of the principal colour of the shield and 
lined with its principal metal. Our fifteenth century artist, 
untroubled by this hampering rule, set out the mantle in any 
colours which take their fancy. The most popular mantle is 
of red with an ermine lining, and no less than thirty-five 
examples are to be found of this treatment, the red being in 
seven cases diapered with leaves and flowers, and in two with 
devices from the crest and shield. 

Blue and ermine are five mantles, and black and ermine, 
red and silver, silver and red number each three mantles. 
Two are of black lined with red, and one example each exists 
of purple and white, red and gold, gold and ermine, and 
black and gold. Two mantles are all black and one all of 
red, others are of three colours. The heads of birds being 
set upon four helms allow their feathers to be continued down- 
ward from the helmet into a feathered mantle, which mantle is 
lined in two cases with red, once with ermine, and once with 
purple. The ' bush of feathers ' of Courtenay's crest rises 
from a mantle all of like feathers, and the like crest of 
Felbrigge has a mantle of feathers lined with red. 

Turning again to our heraldry manuals we find that where 
there is no crown or ' ducal coronet,' as the books prefer to 
style it, there must be either a ' cap of maintenance ' or a 
wreath to support the crest, and the said wreath must be 
formed of the two ' tinctures,' the ' metal and colour ' of the 
mantle, six twists showing at the sidelong view of it. 


In seventeen cases we have nor wreath nor crown nor 
hat. Twenty-one helms are crowned, but seven of these 
crowns are coloured red, a liberty which the handbooks would 
never allow. Nineteen crests are set upon ' hats of estate ' 
or ' bycocket hats/ which hats should by the books be of red 
turned up with ermine, but two of these nineteen are of blue 
and ermine, whereof the blue of one is powdered with fleurs 
de lys, one is of red and silver, one of red and ermine with 
the red diapered with flowers, and one is all of red. In the 
fourteen cases where wreaths are shown four only can be said 
to follow the later rule, the others being twisted of any two 
or three colours at will. Sir Neel Loryng's crest of feathers 
rises from a broad gold band, and Wydvile's plain green 
wreath is set round with upright holly leaves. 

But from these breakers of their rules the authors of the 
handbooks have many things to learn. The crests are large 
and sometimes cover a larger field than shield and helm to- 
gether, but in every case they are set stoutly upon the helm 
which supports them, and the mantles below them, however 
grotesquely dagged and flourished, flow from the helm on 
which they are hung. Here are achievements of arms of all 
ranks from the king to the knight adventurers, but in no case 
do we find the pitiful absurdities of helms set frontwise for 
kings and knights and sidelong for nobles. In every case the 
crest eagerly advances with its bearer. In every case the 
whole composition is freely disposed and graceful in its 

By the courtesy of Mr. Hope we are able to reproduce 
several examples of the stall-plates, and although the beauty 
of the enamel, which is imitated so successfully in his tall 
book, is absent, some idea of the line and balance of the 
compositions may be drawn from these pictures in miniature. 




This noble plate, at once the largest and the most ancient 
of the remaining Garter plates, cannot be of later date than 
the death of its owner in 1390. Sir Ralph, who fought at 
Poitiers and on many other fields of France, was made Knight 
of the Garter in 1368. 

His shield of arms is of gold with three piles ot gules 
and an ermine quarter, and his crest is a black boar's head 
with golden tusks. The shield is still borne by his heirs, the 
Wrottesleys of Wrottesley in Staffordshire. 

Here we see the mantle in its earliest stage, the cloth hung 
upon the helm to protect it from the sun's rays, but in the 
dagged edges and tasseled end we see also the beginning of 
the mantle which later artists were to play with at their 
fantastic will. 

tiiR Ralph Bassett of Drayton. 




This plate is one of the series set up in 1421. Sir Simon 
Felbrigge was the bearer of the king's banner, and is depicted 
as bearing it upon his magnificent brass in Felbrigge church 
in Norfolk. He died at a great age in 1442. 

His shield is gold with a leaping lion of gules, and his 
crest is a bush of feathers of ermine. The ermine feathers run 
down the mantle, which is lined with red, the colour of the 
crown. Besides the crest is one of the two examples which 
these early plates afford of what we now call the ' motto,' but 
which the old knight doubtless called his ' word ' or his 
' reason ' — San3 mUCt* 


Another plate of the series set up in 1421. Sir Hugh 
was governor of Bridgenorth Castle in 1386, and was one of 
the lords who received Richard II. 's abdication in 1399. He 
was Knight of the Garter in 1406 and died in 1420. 

His shield bears the arms of Botetourt — gold with a saltire 
sable engrailed — quartering Burnell, which is silver with a sable 
lion with a crown within a border of azure. His mantle is 
sable and ermine, and his curious crest, which Mr. Hope 
describes as a fan-shaped object with ribs and borders and 
tassels, is nothing more than a conventional form of the burr 
bush which puns upon the name of Burnell. 




Sir Richard Beauchamp died in 1439 as governor for the 
King of France and Normandy. He was made Knight of the 
Garter in 1403, after Shrewsbury fight ; but this plate must 
have been set up after 1423, when he married his second 
wife, Isabel le Despenser, sister and heir of Richard le 
Despenser and daughter of Thomas Earl of Gloucester. 

His shield bears the arms of Beauchamp with its quarter- 
ing for Newburgh, and an escutcheon of the arms of Clare 
quartering Despenser. The crown is red, and the feathered 
mantle turned up with purple, the colour of the swan's beak. 


This plate, which must have been made after 1426, is in 
the form of a black banner with a gold fringe. Sir Walter 
was Speaker of the House of Commons, Constable of Wind- 
sor Castle, and filler of many other high places. He had the 
Garter in 142 1 and died in 1449. 

His shield is sable with two bars silver and three silver 
roundels in the chief. His crest, out of a blue crown, is a 
golden sheaf between two silver sickles. His mantle is barred 
with the arms of Hussey — barry ermine and gules — for that 
his mother was a co-heir of Hussey of Holbrook. 





This plate was set up about 1429 for Sir Humfrey 
Stafford, who was created Knight of the Garter in 1429. 
His dukedom was given him in 1444, and he was killed on 
the Lancastrian side at Northampton in 1460. 

This noble and boldly drawn picture of his arms shows 
his shield of Stafford — gold with a cheveron of gules. His 
crest is a swan's head and wings out of a red crown, and his 
mantle is party of red and black with an ermine lining. 


This plate was made about 1439 for Sir John Grey, who 
was made Knight of the Garter in 1436, 'and died in his 
father's lifetime in 1439. It is a black plate with a golden 

The arms are barry of silver and azure with three roundels 
of gules in the chief quartering the quartered arms of Hastings 
and Valence. A silver label lies over all. His crest of a 
golden wyvern is also charged with this label. The mantle is 
of gold and ermine. 






Sir Richard was a younger son of Ralph, Earl of West- 
morland, and was born in 1400, becoming Knight of the 
Garter about 1436. He was the Yorkist Lord Chancellor in 
1454, and was taken after Wakefield fight in 1460, and be- 
headed by the victorious Lancastrians. He was a made man 
by his marriage with Alice, daughter of Thomas Montague, 
Earl of Salisbury, whom he succeeded in the earldom in 1428 
by right of his wife. 

His shield bears in the first quarter the arms of his earl- 
dom — Montague quartering the green eagle of Mahermer ; 
and in the second quarter is his father's coat of Nevill, differ- 
enced with a label of the Beaufort colours of blue and white, 
here wrongly enamelled as black and white. His crest is a 
sitting griffon, and his mantle is parted of red and black with 
an ermine lining. 


Sir Gaston followed King Henry in his French wars, and 
in 1438 or 1439 was made a knight. The plate was set up 
about 1440. It is here reproduced as being probably a speci- 
men of French work. The arms are those of Foix quartering 
the two red cows of Bearn, with a label whose three points 
are each charged with the cross and escallops of Grailly, his 
father's house. The wings of his crest are paled with the 
gold and gules of Foix, which colours appear also in the long 
eared blackamoor's wreath and coat. 




This beautiful plate was set up about 1450 for Sir Richard 
Wydvile, a Knight of the Garter in 1450. He was a Lancas- 
trian, who became Yorkist on the marriage of his daughter 
with Edward IV. in 1464. An earl in 1464, he was taken 
by Lancastrians and beheaded in Northampton in 1469. 

His shield bears in the first quarter the arms of Wydvile 
— silver with a fesse gules and a quarter gules quartering 
ProweSj gules an eagle of gold. The second quarter is the 
vair of Beauchamp of the west country, and the escutcheon 
over all has Rivers or Reviers, gules a griffon of gold. 

His crest, out of a green wreath set with leaves of holly, 
is a demi-man flourishing a faulchion ; his coat being of red 
with long sleeves, powdered with golden trefoils. 


Sir Thomas Burgh was Knight of the Garter in 1483, 
which will represent the date of the plate before us. In 1487 
he was summoned as a baron to Parliament, and in 1496 he 

His shield bears in the first quarter the coat of Burgh — 
azure with three fleurs de lys ermine. The second quarter 
has the blue lion of Percy quartered with Strabolgi — Sir 
Thomas's mother being Elizabeth, daughter and co-heir of 
Sir Henry Percy, whose mother was co-heir of Strabolgi. 
The helm wreath is black and blue, and the mantle blue and 
ermine. The falcon of the crest is silver with golden beak, 
red legs and a gold crown round the neck. 


LONG has been the debate over the language of the his- 
torical romance. When the knight and the lady, the 
squire and the friar, first found themselves within the boards 
of a novel or within the walls of the Castle of Otranto the 
manner of their speech mattered little. The conventions of 
the novel asking little more than that the Frenchman and the 
Highlander should speak broken English in order to make 
their part clear to the reader, the early romance writers of the 
eighteenth and nineteenth century wore their archaeology easily 
enough. But with the growing demand for a flavour of the 
antique in the speech of the puppets, a language was soon 
framed for the purpose — a language which compares with 
the English of our forefathers even as does the Old English 
costume of the novelist's illustrator with the dress of past 
times. The Old English costume of doublet with small 
tuckered frills at neck and wrists, with slashed trunk breeches, 
short mantle, cap and plume, and boots with tops turned 
over the ankles, served to clothe many villains and many 
heroes, the heroes with curling locks and little patches of 
whisker by the ear, the villains adding heavy eyebrows and 
rudimentary moustaches. It found itself at last officially 
recognized at King George IV. 's expensive coronation, and 
the stage accepted it with enthusiasm. The stage too made 
the Old English language its own, and in the mouths of Mr. 
Crummies and his fellows the ' beshrew me ' and ' by my hali- 
dame * of the novelist became familiar oaths. 

The first landmarks of the revival of Gothic architecture 
are Strawberry Hill and Abbotsford, and likewise we may 
reckon the progress of the historical novel by the Castle of 
Otranto and Ivanhoe, In Walpole*s day England was incurious 
concerning its past. If Mr. Horace Walpole, a lord's son and 
a rich man, chose to gather oddments of old armour and 
coloured glass and to build himself a villa in what no one 
doubted to be the Old English style, it was the harmless humour 
of a great gentleman playing at the barbarian, and the Castle 
of Otranto and its fellows, ' gothick tales ' as we styled them, 
were accepted with an agreeable shudder as pictures of the mys- 
terious and Gothic past. But it is a far cry from Strawberry 



Hill to Abbotsfordj and beside Sir Walter's Scott's pony the 
nation travelled a long road. If anywhere it be allowed to give 
one man's name to a stream of tendency in life and letters it must 
surely be with the good and gallant Scott. The historian, the 
antiquary, the romancer — if their full debt to Sir Walter came 
straightly home to all of these, what a pilgrimage might set out 
for Dryburgh Abbey to ask forgiveness for all ungratefulness. 

Yet the man who brought us the new light, who showed 
us that the past was no gloomy shadowland, but a many 
coloured and delightful world, alive and stirring with the 
deeds of men of our own blood, was little of an antiquary 
himself. Gentle Captain Clutterbuck, for whom a round arch 
was Saxon work and a pointed arch was after the Norman's 
fashion, may well stand for his creator. They tell us that a 
race of boy is growing up who will have none of Ivanhoe^ 
preferring the fascinating machines of Messieurs Boothby and 
Pemberton. It may be said for that boy that he will escape 
those curious misconceptions of almost every detail of twelfth 
century manners, which cling to us in whose nursery Ivanhoe 
was familiar as our bread and butter, but a safe grounding in 
archaeology may be gained at too high a price, and one may 
ask whether the new novels are more satisfying to the purist. 

The lists of Ashby de la Zouche have seen many a brisk 
skirmish since the Templar and the Black Knight rode away 
from them. Ivanhoe himself has been a mark for many shafts, 
and the critic has told every link in his Milan harness of linked 
anachronisms. True it is that young knights of King Richard's 
day outrage the fashions in such matters by displaying shields 
with young oak trees eradicated with a motto painted under- 
neath their roots, even as the fancy stationer could emblazon 
them upon our envelopes. And if a young English knight's 
fancy should lead him to the improbability of translating his 
motto into Spanish he ought to translate it more accurately 
than did Sir Wilfrid. 

But to cry out upon such accidents of detail is treason to 
the patron saint of antiquaries, the holy founder of our gild. 
Sir Walter rode alone even as did Sir Wilfrid, none aiding him, 
and those mighty and whole-spirited books of his should be 
sacred things for the critic. 

Our later romancers, the heirs of three generations of the 
new historical studies, have no claim to such forbearance. For 
the most selfish reason we must remain on good terms with 


our Scott, knowing well that the day comes surely round when 
we shall be impelled to read him again, to go back to rub elbows 
with Dugald Dalgetty and the Baron of Bradwardine. With 
all the cleverness, the learning and ingenuity, which must be 
acknowledged to them, our history book romancers to-day fail 
to call us to a second reading. 

The criticism of the novel is no business for The Ancestor^ 
but when the novel wanders into those paths which The Ancestor 
walks. The Ancestor may speak with it on the way. 

Here then for our text we have The White Company^ 2l 
romance by Sir Conan Doyle, an honest book and a whole- 
some, with better reading for the young of the English than 
any score new novels on the never-failing motives of sex 
problems or 'jewel mysteries.' But the critics have not con- 
tented themselves with praising the * Song of the bow ' for a 
rousing song, nor the story for a hearty and stirring one. We 
must be told that a perfect picture of fourteenth century 
England is before us, and that romance has here its foundation 
upon sure fact and accurate detail. 

As we turn the leaves of The White Company^ we note at 
the outset that it is full of heraldry, and heraldry has ever 
been the stumbling-block of the novelist, from the catch- 
phrase with the ' bar-sinister ' to the full chapter with the 
tournament banners under which the hero bears away the 
tilting prize. Sir Conan Doyle trips even more heavily than 
his fellows. It is evident that for him the whole business 
of the ' language and science of blazonry ' is good fourteenth 
century matter instead of being post-medieval accretion. At 
the beginning of his career AUeyne Edricson is questioned 
by his master Sir Nigel as to his proficiency in this science, 
and we are relieved to find that he acquits himself passing 
well for a young man born before the language demanded 
of him had been invented. ' Argent a fesse azure charged 
with three lozenges dividing three mullets sable, over all on 
an escutcheon of the first a jambe gules.* Thus Master 
Alleyne, with all the assurance of one who has Boutell or 
Clarke at his finger ends, and Sir Nigel assures him with truth 
that the sentence is well enough for a monk-bred man, which 
is great praise from one who, like Sir Nigel, was a long way 
ahead of his time in his knowledge of such things. This we 
see when Sir Nigel boasts of his sixty-four noble quarterings, 
a phrase which would have no meaning for centuries after 


him, and which would never be fully understood by English- 
men. Sweet counsel on heraldry we may also take with Sir 
William de Pakington, a grave personage who is introduced 
as the Black Prince's own herald and scrivener, a doubling of 
trades hard to understand. Sir William ' in the heraldic barret 
cap with triple plume which bespoke his office ' — Sir Conan 
has evidently taken the best advice Covent Garden can afford 
concerning the costume of heralds — is an imposing figure, but 
we sympathize nevertheless with the young knights whom 
he rebukes for their ignorance of the point that a crescent 
was the established ' difference ' for a second son's shield, as 
indeed two centuries later it was to become. Before we part 
with Sir William, he gives us a touch of his craft as a 
genealogist. Hearing that a gentleman before him is called 
by the sufficiently widely spread name of Ford, he pronounces 
him at once, to the admiration of his hearers, to come of ' a 
South Saxon stock of good repute,' and the ' South Saxon ' in 
the mouth of a fourteenth century herald surprises neither Sir 
Nigel Loring nor Sir Conan Doyle. 

Everywhere ne White Company encounters heraldry, and 
everywhere it is woefully wrong and topsy-turvy heraldry. 
The banners of the great English lords, and with them the 
banners of some families unfamiliar in such company, meet us 
at every turn of the lane. We meet 'the escutcheon of the 
Montacutes, a roebuck gules on a field argent,' but Monta- 
cute, or Montague as we call him when we know our middle 
ages, bore no such beast. Aylward the archer points out at 
Lyndhurst the ' three martlets on a field azure,' which he 
assures us must be for one of the Luttrells, and Aylward is 
wrong as usual, although we can forgive a man who knows 
so little of armory as to show no surprise when he sees that 
Sir Bernard Brocas, the owner of the next banner, is bearing 
his Saracen's head crest on that banner instead of on his hel- 
met. This, as we understand Sir Conan and Sir Nigel, was, 
surprising as it may seem, no rare practice in the Black 
Prince's host, for we find Beauchamp invariably bearing the 
white wings of his swan crest on his shield, and even then 
unaccountably forgetting that his crest was the swan's head 
alone without any flanking wings. Lord Audley bears martlets, 
which is no coat of Audley. The Lucies bear boars' heads 
in place of their more familiar ' white luces,' and the Hamp- 
shire Roches bear, instead of their leopards, the roaches of 



another family of the name, and those coloured wrongly. 
Wake at last comes to amaze us by bearing the scarlet bars 
which are indeed part of his arms. 

When even the arms of great Chandos himself are mis- 
quoted, we turn from Aylward and Sir NigeFs descriptions of 
the banners of these captains feeling that Sir Conan has over- 
estimated their powers when he tells us that, like most men 
of their age, they were ' well versed in heraldry.' 

But worse remains behind. If we were to choose at 
haphazard a fellow countryman unaware that the badge 
of St. George borne on our nation's banner was a red cross 
— St. George's cross — we should not have chosen the singer 
of the * song of the bow ' for such ill eminence. But so, 
alas, it is ! The ' true English bowman ' bear, as a matter 
of habit, ' white surcoats with the Lion of Sl George in red upon 
the centre,' and women on the eve of battle are described as 
cutting out white surcoats and adorning them ' with the red 
lion of St. George.' That the cross of St. George should be 
unknown to an English-speaking man staggers belief. We go 
sadly back again to more blazoning by Aylward and his com- 
mander of the shields of captains, only to find Sir Nigel 
describing the Worsleys as an Apuldercombe family ^ who 
like myself are of Hampshire lineage,' and we have no heart 
to protest that he has misread his handed Gentry or to tell him 
that the Worsleys were then a Lancashire family, who would 
come to Apuldercombe by marriage with the Lees of that 
place several generations after Sir Nigel would be dead and 
buried. If we corrected him we should feel obliged to go 
further and explain that the ' bloody ' cheveron of the Norfolk 
Wodehouses does not appear, according to the family legend, 
until it is granted on Agincourt field fifty years after Sir Nigel, 
who is short-sighted, thinks he descries it, nor for some years 
later, if we stay by sober facts. 

The very names of our characters show no advance in the 
novelist's apprehension of such things since Scott first pioneered 
the way. Scott, mistranslating the Reginaldus of old charter 
Latin, gave us Reginald Front de Boeuf — from whom come 
the host of Reginalds since born to displace the old English 
Reynold — the true translation of Reginaldus. But in Sir 
* Nigel ' Loring we have the like error. Sir Conan Doyle's 
imagination failing him, he must needs take the name of an 
actual Garter Founder for his heroic little knight, giving him 


a new shield of arms, and describing his family as of Hamp- 
shire instead of Bedfordshire. But Nigel is Nigellus mis- 
rendered. Nigellus should translate as Nele or Neel, a 
name from which comes a frequent English surname ; and 
when Sir Conan fishes the true Sir Neel Loring from some 
chronicle which thus rightly names him, he is allowed under 
that description to enter the pages of The White Company^ 
where he is accounted for as a second cousin of Sir ' Nigel.' 
Sir William Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, represents a like 
misrendering — the charter Latin of ' de Monte Acuto * equals 
Montague and not Montacute. Needless to say our fourteenth 
century lord is spoken of as ' the Baron Brocas/ which was 
not our English custom even when speaking of a baron. 

The names are unfortunate throughout. Samuel and 
Silas will serve well enough for Cromwellian troopers in some 
future work of Sir Conan's, but we reject them as character- 
istic names of fourteenth century bowmen. In a thirteenth 
century roll the writer of these lines once encountered a 
Samuel ; but with a wider experience of old English names 
than has Sir Conan, he rejects Aylward's Christian name as a 
glaring improbability. Aylward's companions however seem 
well used to the name, and every stranger hails him as Sam 
or ' Samkin ' with the ease of habit. 

The hero follows the present fashion in pedigrees. He is 
a Saxon of Saxons, and to our wonderment we find our four- 
teenth century nobility so interested in ' Saxon ' pedigrees of 
a genuine character that Sir Nigel assures his squire that, had 
he his family soccage holding, ' any family in the land would 
be proud to take you amongst them, seeing that you come of 
so old a family.' Our own experience of the marriages of the 
daughters of great houses in Sir Nigel's day would put them 
upon a more mercenary basis. 

Alleyne Edricson was our hero's own not over probable 
name, and ' his father would trace his pure Saxon lineage to 
that Godfrey Malf who had held the manors of Bisterne and 
of Minstead at the time when the Norman first set mailed 
foot upon English soil.' Sir Conan is evidently of opinion 
that Alleyne's name is itself characteristically Saxon, and that 
the name Godfrey is as Saxon as Hengist. But ' Alleyne ' is 
Breton and ' Godfrey ' is so remarkably un-English that we 
overhaul Domesday to find that the holders of Minstead at 
the Survey were the sons of a deceased Godric Malf. Godric, 



so English a name that twelfth-century Normans used it for 
the typical ' John Bull,' has thus been clumsily misunderstood 
as the French Godfrey. Surely Sir Walter was a safer guide 
with his Cedrics and Wilfreds and Athelstans ! And since 
the tournament of Ashby de la Zouche and the siege of 
Torquilstone we have made no advance with our knowledge 
of the lesser trappings of the romance, with our armour and 
weapons and such like knightly necessaries. 

In Sir NigeFs kit as packed for France we have the shoes 
with golden toe chains dear to Mrs. Markham and the nursery 
historians. The knights joust in 'plain tilting salades^ al- 
though the salade is not a characteristic head covering for 
people who jousted in the great helm which carried the crest, 
and although the salade belongs to the fifteenth century and is 
out of place here in the fourteenth. The word brigandine 
signifies to the antiquary a jacket quilted with little plates of 
iron, to Sir Conan it is but a convenient word to flavour 
with when we are speaking of military costume. Generally 
he describes it as a garment of chain mail, but in one case ' a 
dinted brigandine * shows a faded red lion of St. George ' — 
alas ! that red lion of Sir Conan's dream — ' ramping on a dis- 
coloured ground,' so that the brigandine was sometimes a gar- 
ment capable, like its name, of bearing some embroidery. Thus 
medieval local colour is obtained by daubing in strange words 
whose meaning Sir Conan guesses at and misunderstands. 

That Sir Conan Doyle has learned little since the days 
when he fought with White Company is shown by a later 
work, A Duety with an Occasional Chorus, Here we have Sir 
Conan setting about a good work, and through the mouth of 
Mr. Frank Crosse telling us that the duty of us who live by 
London is to love and cherish its old stories and its present 
beauties. But Mr. Frank Crosse is a guide of the least trust- 
worthy. We are ashamed for him and for his godfather Sir 
Conan when he leads his beloved and betrothed to the cabyard 
before Charing Cross station and with a grave face plants her 
before ' the beautiful old stone cross.' 

* Six hundred years ago,' said Frank, as they paused and looked up, * that 
old stone cross was completed, with heralds and armoured knights around it to 
honour her whose memory was honoured by the king. Now the corduroyed 
porters stand where the knights stood, and the engines whistle where the 
heralds trumpeted, but the old cross is the same as ever in the same old place. 
It is a little thing of that sort which makes one realize the unbroken history of 
our country.' 



It is, on the contrary, *a little thing of that sort which makes 
one realize ' that the history of our country is but a toyshop 
fancy even to our educated men and to those who, like Sir 
Conan Doyle, would fain be our teachers. That a man of 
liberal culture should take the Victorian erection with which the 
fancy of the South Eastern Railway directors have adorned their 
yard for * a beautiful old stone cross ' of the greatest days of 
the English architect's art, and should waste emotional wonder 
upon it is nothing less than amazing, and saddening withal. 

We walk with Mr. Frank Crosse as far as the Abbey in 
chastened mood, passing on our way without comment the 
real site of ' the beautiful old cross.' Even the recollection of 
Edward I.'s heralds, who blow upon trumpets for no better 
reason than that the White Rabbit of Lewis Carroll was in 
after years to be pictured in a herald's tabard and blowing a 
trumpet, fails to cheer us. We leave Frank and Maude at the 
Abbey, for there Frank will explain that hanging upon a cross- 
beam above are the actual helmet and shield used by Henry 
V. at Agincourt, and this is another thing which is not so. 

Now, when the antiquary has finished his carping at the 
men who live to amuse and cheer him, the last word remains 
after all with the novelist. Shall not the novelist reply that 
as archaeology has been reckoned for ages no more than a 
fitting amusement for the closing years of elderly gentlemen, 
the science has left its work unorganized, unarranged and 
undone ? It is not the business of the historian, of the 
novelist, or the painter to leave desk and easel to stumble 
along the ways of original research into medieval details. And 
all three may ask where is the row of volumes which they 
should find on the library shelf to give them in clear and 
trustworthy fashion the points they need in matters touching 
the customs, dress and language of our English forefathers. 

So with happy remembrances of a good story well told, 
and there are too few of such, we leave Tbe IVhite Company to 
go its jolly way, blowing as is its wont upon its nakers, a kind 
of kettledrum which the good knight Sir Conan, who is un- 
certain of the meaning of the word, insists upon their using 
for trumpets.^ 


^ The Bab Balladmonger who invites us to * blow the spirit-stirring harp 
like anything ! ' may here find countenance and good company. 

The First Page of a Book of Arms, 

(Harl: MS. 1169.) 


THIS book of arms, once in the possession of Randle 
Holme, whose signature is found upon the first folio, is 
now amongst the Harleian MSS. at the British Museum, 
being numbered 2169 in that collection, and entitled 
'Aunciant Coates.' Seventy -one leaves remain out of 
seventy-six or more. It is especially interesting as an example 
of decadent armory in the intermediate period between 
the practice of the art in the great days of heraldry and 
the charlatanry of its revival as a so-called science under the 
Tudors. The book of arms before us is a collection of hasty 
trickings with a pen, a very few being roughly coloured, and 
it is hoped that our illustrations, which are from photographs 
specially taken for The Ancestor^ may fairly represent their 
original. It will be seen that unequal and coarse as is the 
execution of the work the artist shows by his bold and well 
balanced sketches of many of the figures that he is capable of 
much finer work than would appear at a first glance at his 
armorial crudities. 

Another reason for reproducing this book of arms in its 
completeness may be found in the language of the compilers, 
for the original drawings are spotted with words and phrases 
which we have endeavoured to inlay in our own blazon, which 
has followed as far as may be the form of the customary 
armorial language of the time. 

The beginning of this roll is somewhat unpromising to 
the student. The arms of the kings of the wild places of 
the earth, of the nine worthy conquerors, pagan, Jew and 
Christian, of the kings which were once in England, and 
of the old English nobles, quaint as they are, are the common- 
places of such books. But in the latter part of the work we 
shall be introduced to many and valuable blazons of the 
author's contemporaries which would otherwise be hard to 
find, for fifteenth century heraldry, strangely enough, is 
darker to delve in than that of the fourteenth or thirteenth 

The date of the roll is evidently the reign of Henry VI., 




the sovereign glorified in the last of the creaking verses which 
follow the pictures of English kings on horseback at the open- 
ing of the book. A more exact date is perhaps afforded by 
the presence of a number of London shields, which include 
those of Wyfolde or Wywold, Gregory and Norman, Lord 
Mayors in 1450, 145 1 and 1453, and that of John Derby, 
sheriff of London in 1446. Here also we have the arms 
of John Stockton and William Stoker, who were to be Lord 
Mayors in 1470 and 1483, and the arms of the Tallow 
Chandlers, granted in 1456. 

[folio i] 

'Thys Wylyam dowke of Normandye, As bokys olde makyth 

By just tytyll and by hys chewalreye, Made kynge by quon- 

qwest of Brewtus Albyon, 
Putt owte Herrowde and toke possescyon. And bare hys crowne 

full one and xx yere. 
Beryed at Kane thus sayth the croneclere. 

1. Goulys a lion gold with a border engrailed ^oZ^ [Fitzalan] 

quartering checkered gold and asure [Warenne]. Mayster 
ToMAs Arrundell,^ Byschoppe of Caunterbery, 

2. ^e feld sable with a cross engrailed ermine and a crescent 

ermine in the quarter. Master Robarde Halla[m] 
[Bishop of Salisbury, 1408-17]. 

[folio i b] 

3. At the back of this first leaf is a torn fragment of a shield 

having apparently these arms : sylvyr three ragged 
staves sable. Over the shield is written , , , on pas 
done uncore, [This is probably the shield of Subston.J 

Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1397-98 and 1 399-1414. 


[folio ii] 

[Here follows the like figure of a king upon a horse with 
these verses above it.] 

The fyfth Herrey of Knyghthode the loaesterre, JVyse . . . 

uly to termyne. 
Reyght fortunat prewyd yn pece and werre, Gretly expert 

and marchall dyscyplyne. 
Worthy to stonde amonge the worthy ix, Reyned x yere who 

so lyst to have rewarde, 
Lyth at Westmestyr nott fer from Seynt Edwarde, 

4. A cross engrailed between four water bougets [Bourchier]. 

5. Sylvyr two cheverons sabyll between three roses [gules] 


6. A cross engrailed goulys with five pierced cinqfoils thereon. 

[Priory of Hedyngton (Edington), co. Wilts ?] 


[folio iii] 

T hys sext Henrey hrowght forth yn all wertues. By just tytyll 
hyryn by anerytaunce a fore prowyde by the grace of Cryst Jesus. 
'To were ij crownys of Tnglonde and of Fraunce, To whom God 
hath gevyn soverayne suffysaunce of wertus lyfe. And chose hym 
for hys knyght. Long to regoyse and reygne yn hys reyght, 

7. A cheveron between three pierced cinqfoils — impaling 
the arms of the see of Canterbury — aseur a pall sylvre 
with four crosses formy fitchy. Mayster Harry 
ChycheleYj Byschoppe of Cauntyrbery [14 14- 1443]. 



8. Sylvyr a lion goulys armyd aseure croune and . . . 

Leusandbergh Cardynal^ Cardynall of Ro . . . [Luxem- 

9. Sa^k three palm branches gold, Mayster John Chaundler^ 

[folio iv] 

Three leaves are wanting before this folio. The page is- 
headed — 

The pe de grewe he reyght lyne 

Fownd and prewyd by anerytaunce 

How Kynge Herry the Sexyth nowght coleyne 

Ts trewe Kynge of Fraunce, 

But no pedigree follows. 

10. Aseure two crossed fish jjy/i;jyr with crowns of gold, [The 

Stockfish MONGERS of London.] 

1 1 . Six pieces and goulys with three pyneapplys of 

gold in the gules. 

12. Party cheveronwise battled gold and aseure with three 

eglys countyrcolorys after the felde [John Derby, a sheriff' 
of London in 1446]. 




3. Party cheveronwise battled gold and sahyll with three 

eglys contyrcolorys. [Possibly for Sir William Taylor, 
Lord Mayor in 141 1. His arms are generally given 
as gold with a dance sable between three eagles sable.] 

4. Party syhyr and aseur with two couching lions contyrcolorys, 

[Probably the shield of William Gregory, Lord 
Mayor of London in 1451, whose arms are generally 
given with the two lions rampant back to back, as in 
Harl. MS. 1349.] 

5. Party bendwise, or 'embelif ' sylvyr and sahyll with a lion 

contyrcolorys enbelyfe after the felde. Rote. 

6. Silver a pile bo tony sable and thereon a lily flower silver 

with stalk and leaves. 

7. Six pieces gold and azure with three flour dlys of sylvyr in 

the azure, pieces. 

8. Party bendwise azure and silver an eagle enhelyf contyr 

colorys armyd gold, [} Blakenhale.] 


19. Paly battled silver and gules. 

20. Six pieces azure and silver with three dowys with sprigs in 

their beaks in the azure pieces. [Above the shield is 
written, in a later hand. Tallow Chandlers. These 
arms were granted in 1456.] 

2 1 . Gyronny of six pieces azure and silver with three birds in 

the silver pieces. [The arms of William Stoker, who 
died Lord Mayor in 1484, the year of the sweating 
sickness, in which year were three Lord Mayors of 
London. The birds should be popinjays.] 

[folio 4 b] 

22. Silver four bars azure with a lion gules crowned. Roy 

DE Sypyr [Cyprus] the arms of lerewsalem qwartly 
alL In the margin is a rough trick of the arms of 

23. A herythe of asewre an ymage of sylvyr of seynt gorge. The 

Kynge of Savastopolo. 

24. A^crowned lion. Roy de Ermonye. 


25. Azure three hulls of long ships of gold with dragon heads 

of gules at prow and stern. Roy de Norrewaye. 

26. A silver cross the first quarter being of gold with three 

leopards azure, the second of azure with three golden 
crowns, the third of silver with a griffon of gules and 
the fourth of gules with a golden lion holding an axe. 
On the cross is an escutcheon of gold with two leopards 
azure. Roy de Dacye. 

27. Gold a lion of gules — corrected in a note to a lion passant. 

I'he armys of Brewte the fyrst that ever conqvjeryd 

28. Party gules and silver with two bends of silver in the 

gules. Sir Lawncelot de Lake. 

29. The feld wert with three golden griffons passant. Sir 

Ga WAYNE the good knyght. Below this shield is another, 
now half torn away, which is to be part Gawayne. 
It bears sable fretty silver with a label gules. 

30. Silver a wyvern wertt armyd gowlys, Uter Pendragon. 


[folio v] 

3 1 . Gold a roundel sable and thereon a lion passant of silver 

with a crown. The gentyll Sowdan. 

32. ne feld of sabyll with a golden chalice and a tortose of 

sylvyr. The Sowden of Babyloyne. 

33. Azure a golden hare leaping. Roy de Tate. 

[Here follow the arms of the three Kings of Cologne.] 

34. Azure the waxing moon of gold with a golden molet 

between her horns. Roy Jasper de Coloyne. 

35. Azure seven golden molets. Roy Melcher de Coloyne. 

36. A man clad in a coat girdled at the waist, having his legs 

bare. He points with his right hand and in his left 
hand he holds a lance with a pennon of a wyvern. 
Roy Baltezer de Coloyne. 



37. feld of aseure with a golden ship having the mast gold 
and the sayle sylvyr. The Armys of Orkeney. 

38. ^he feld aseure the griffon in the felde ramp and [tricked as 

passant] all of golde, Roy de Gryffon. 

39. Azure three golden lions' heads rased. Sir Gawayne 

THE GENTYLL. [Over this name is written Roy de 

40. The torn shield at the foot of this folio is of silver with a 

sable wyvern. The arm grasping the wyvern is clad in 
gules barred with gold. A note explains that it impart 
with the chaleySy that is to say, impaled with the chalice 
coat of Babyloyne above described [No. 32]. 

[folio 5 b] 

The IX WORTHY conqwerourys. 

41. Sable two fighting lions of gold. Ector de Troye. 

42. Gules a golden lion rampant sitting in a silver chair and 

holding an axe of azure. Alyxaundyr Magnus. 

43. Gules a two headed eagle sable. Julyus Sesare. 


44. Azure a harp of gold. Roy Davyth. 

45. Lozengy silver and gules with a wyvern sable. Dewke 


46. Gold two corny sch chowys with beke and fet rede. Judas 


47. Gules three golden crowns palewise. Roy Arthur. 

48. The old coat of France dimidiated with the emperor's 

coat of the two headed eagle. Roy Charlemayne. 
The eagle side has a note saying thys syde before, 

49. A jumbled trick which is evidently meant for the coat of 

Jerusalem dimidiated with a coat of gules with a golden 
escarbocle. Godffray de Bolloyne. 



[folio 6 b] 

50. Gules a silver column bound about with a cord and 
crowned with a golden crown. The Pope of Roome, 
Martyne de Columnis.^ 

51. Azure the figure of Christ nailed upon a golden cross. 

pRESTER John. 

52. Gold an eagle sable. Emperowre of Rome et de 


53. Gold a cross gules between four fire-steels gules. The 

Emperowre of Costantyne le Noblle and of Grace. 

54. Silver a cross potent between four like crosses all of gold. 

Roy de Jereusalem. 

55. Azure three fleurs de lys of gold. Roy de Fraunce. 

1 Martin V. (Otho Colonna) 1417-24. 



56. France quartered with England. Roye de Engletare et 

DE Fraunce. 

57. Gules a golden castle [for Castile] quartering silver a lion 

porpyll [for Leon]. Roy de Spayne et de Castyle. 

58. Paly gold and gules of ten pieces Roy de Arragon et de 

Cescyle. a note is added — but iiij paly of gowlys and 
the feld of gowlys. 

[folio 6 b] 

59. Silver five escutcheons of azure set crosswise each with 

five roundels of silver, the bordewr goulys with the cas- 
telys gold. The artist seems to have abandoned his 
thought of setting the five escutcheons upon a cross 
paty of vert. Roy de Portyngale. 

60. Gules the Navarrese net of golden chains quartering Old 

France with a bend silver and gules gobony. Roy de 

61. (Silver ?) a lion (gules i^) with a golden crown. Roy de 




62. Silver three bars gules impaled with the old coat of France 

Roy de Hongerye. 

63. Gules a kynge on horsse hakke silver. Roy de Poyle. 

64. The old coat of France with a label gules, impaled with 

Jerusalem. Roy de Naplys. 

65. Party saltirewise — the chief and foot gold with nij palys 

of gowlys and the flanking pieces each silver with an 
eagle sable with a golden crown. Roy de Cescyle the 


66. Six pieces, the first barry silver and gules but of vj pecys^ 

although tricked as three bars gules [Sicily], the second 
with the old coat of France and a label gules [Naples], 
the third with the arms of Jerusalem, the fourth with 
the old coat of France and a bordure gules [Anjou], the 
fifth azure crusilly gold and two golden barbel back to 
back [Bar], the sixth gold with three eagles of silver 
on a bend gules [Lorraine], Roy de Cescyle, Dewke 
de Angoye. 

67. 'The feld of gold the do why II tressore flour te all gowlys the lyone 

of the same, Roy de Scottys. 


[folio 7] 

'The lordys that bene past here afore tyme, 

68. Azure a cross paty gold and five merlettys gold. Roy 

Edward Sc. 

69. Silver a cross gules. Seynt Gorge. 

70. Gules three lions passant [sic] of gold. [Seynt . . . 

Kynge struck out] Kyng of Ingland. 

71. England with a label of France. Dewke of Lancastyr. 

72. France and England with a border of azure and ermine 

gobony. Dewke of Excestre— Bewfort. 

73. Azure a bend and two cotises of . . . between six lyonys 

golde^ with three pierced molets on the bend. Erle of 
Herfforde [corrected in a later hand to Northeham- 



74. Gold three leopards azure. Roy de Denmarke. 

75. The armys of Tngelond the hordore sylvyr and the flowrdelyes 

of golde, Erle of Hontyngeton. The coat and 
name are struck through by a later pen. 

76. Gold and asewre checche, Erle of Warreyne. 

At the foot of this folio is a rough trick of the arms of 
Edward the Confessor impaled with France and England 
— Edward Yngelond. 

[folio 7 b] 

77. Gold and aseure cheche with a cheveron ermine. Erle of 

Warrewyke, Sir Gye. 

78. Silver a chief gules with three roses countercoloured. 

Erle of Hampton, Sir Bewys. 

79. Azure three bars gold and a chief of gold with three 

pales and two gyrons of azure with an escutcheon of 
silver over all. Erle of Marche. 


80. Gold a cross gules. Erle of Ulstyr. 

8 1 . Azure three open harnaklys of golde and a chief ermine 

with a demi lion gules. Erle of Genewyle. 

82. Gules a lion gold [Fitzalan] quartered with golde and 

aseure checche [Warenne]. Erle of Arrondell. 

83. Silver a lion gules with a crown, the bordore sahyll hesaunte 

of golde, Erle of Cornewayle. 

84. Gold a lyone of purpulL Erle of Lyncolne. 

85. Sylvyr and aseure berk with an orle of vij or ix merlettys 

gowlys [Valence]. 




[folio 8] 

86. Gules a lion silver armyd aseure, Erle Marchal 


87. Gules a fesse gold and six crosslets gold, with a crescent 

sable on the fesse. Erle of Woscestre. 

88. Paly silver and vert [in a later hand vair and gules] a 

chief gold with an eagle . . . Erle of Penbroke, 
Sir Frauncys de Cortetyngem ^. [corrected in a later 
hand to Erle of Mortayne and Boloigne]. 

89. Gold and wert party a lion gules. Bygot duke [sic] of 

North efolk. At the side of this shield is a rough 
trick of a shield with a 'gurge.' 

90. Gules a cross paty of sylvyr and asewre werre. Count de 


9 1 . Silver a lion sable with a border of sable [^ azure ' in a 

later hand]. The Lord Burnell. 



93. France and England with a hordore syhyr with lyonys 

purpull. Count de Cambrygge. 

94. Silver a fesse indented gules of three feselys [Montague] 

quartered with gold an eagle vert [Mahermer]. Count 
DE Salysbery, Mountegew. 

[folio 8 b] 

95. Golde and aseure cheche with a quarter ermine and a border 

gules. Cownd de Rychemonde. 

96. Gold three bars gules. [Lo : Harcourt in a later hand.] 

97. Barry gold and gules with three roundels gules in the 

chief. Lord Wake. 



98. Gules a lion silver with a forked taylL Count de 


99. Sylvyr and aseure werre a fesse gules. Lord Mermyon. 
100. Azure three sheaves of gold. Count de Chestyr. 

10 1. Silver a bend gules and six martlets gules. Lord 

102. Party ermine [altered in a later hand to silver] and gules 

indented. Count de Leycestyr [altered in a later 
hand to Simon Sentlez, Count de Huntington]. 

103. Gold three cheverons gules with a label azure. Cownt 

de Clare. Sir Gylbert [in a later hand E : Gloster]. 


[folio 9] 

Thes heth the vij kyn^s that dzvellydyn Tngelond attonys. 

104. A cross between four lions. Seynt Oswalde. Roy de 


105. Gules three knives or seaxes of silver with golden hafts, 

Roy de Kent. 

106. Gules [blank]. Roy de Essex 

107. Azure three trefoils silver. Roy de Sowthsex. 

108. Silver three crowns gules. Roy de North folke. 

109. Azure three crowns silver. Roy de Marchelond. 




10. Gold a cheveron gules. Count de Stafforde. 

1 1 . Gold fretty sable and a chief sable with three bezants. 

Lord Seinctamount. 

12. Gold three piles gules with a quarter ermine [Basset]. 

Here he vj of the kyngys that dwelled all att oo tyme yn Tngelonde 
And Seynt Edzvardys armys was the sevynth. 

[folio 9 b] 

13. Azure a cross paty gold between four lions gold. 

Sanctus Cutbertus episcopus. 

14. Purpull a cross gold between four lions gold. Sanctus 


15. Azure with the device of the Trinity in silver. Sent 

Myhell armys. 


116. Silver iij corny sch chowys impaled with azure a pall 

silver charged with five crosses formy fitchy [Canter- 
bury]. Sainct Thomas of Caunterbery. 

117. Azure a cross paty gold between four lyonseus of sylver, 

Sainct Cuthberd of Derham. 

118. Gold seven voided lozenges of gules. Sainct W. of 


119. Gules three fleurs de lys out of leopards' heads gold. 

Sainct Thomas of Herforde. De Canthilupo. 

120. Azure a bend gold with a label of silver. Mayster 


121. Silver a bend sable with a crescent in the chief, quartered 

with gules fretty gold.^ Byschoppe Spenser of 


^ In this shield we see an early example of the tendency of the fretty 
figure in the decadence of armorial art to assume the form of a voided lozenge 
laced with a saltire. 


[folio lo] 

122. Azure three crowns gold. Sainct Edmond Kynge of 

Yngelond of olde tyme. 

123. Sylver iij rayndere hedys all of sahylL Mayster Bowet, 

Byschopp of Yorke [Archbishop of York 1407— 


1 24. Sabyll iij assys passans of sylvyr. Mayster W. Askewe, 

Byschoppe of Salysbery. 

125. Silver a wave sable between three hares' heads gold. 

Byschoppe Harrewell [Bishop of Bath and Wells 

126. Azure a cross formy parted silver and gules (the field 

would seem to be parted by an error of the draughts- 
man). Seynt Tomas of Akerys. 

127. Silver a lion sable and a chief sable with two couples of 

silver keys. The Abbey of Hyde yn Wynchestyr. 


128. Azure a crosier gold between iij coychonys of the armys of 

March with the fauce coychon of gowlys. Abbot of 
Thornton — Cortays. 

129. Sable three silver swans. 

130. Silver seven voided lozenges gules. Byschoppe of 


[fo. 10 b] 

ni. Gold a cross sable engrailed. Lord of Offord. 

132. Party silver and azure indented. Fytzgerod. 

133. Ermyne a chief gules indented. Count de Mortayne. 

1 Robert Bray broke. Bishop of London [i 382-1404], bore these arms 
within a border, as appears by his seal. 



134. Vairy gold and azure. Lord of Gynes.^ 

135. Paly gules and vair (of ten pieces) with a chief gold and 

a label azure. Count de Sent Poule. 

136. Paly gold and gules (probably for ten pieces). Count 

DE Provense. 

1 ( 


It t tl 

137. Gules three pales vair with a chief gold [a later hand has 

made a rough trick of an eagle on the chief, and 
headed the shield Comes Bloys]. 

138. Silver six crosslets sable fitchy with a chief azure and two 

pierced molets of gold on the chief. Count de 


139. Silver two bars azure with a quarter azure and a pierced 

cinqfoil of gold on the quarter. Ratherfeld Pyp- 


1 The form of the vair shows that the coat was taken from an early 


□ 0 D 



140. Azure billety gold with a dance of gold. Lord Den- 


141. Silver two cheverons gules [Seymour] quartered with a 

saltire charged with a crescent [Nevill], Lord 
Saymer, Newyll. 

142. Wert a lyone of gold [Robessart] quartered with silver a 

cross gules engrailed between iiij boyschys of sabyll 
[Bovrchier]. Lord Bowrcher, Robsarde. 

143. Sabyll a fret of gola. Lord Matreweres. 

144. Golde a bend sabyll. Lord Mauley [altered from 

Waste NEYs]. 

145- Quarterly gules and silver with an eagle of gold in the 
quarter [Philip] quartered with azure three pierced 
cinqfoils gold [Bardolf]. Lord Bardolffe. Sir 
Wylyam Phelype [died 144 1]. 


146. Vairy gold and gules and a border azure with horse 

shoes silver. Ferrers. 

147. Gyronny gold and azure (of twelve pieces) with a 

quarter ermine. 

148. Paly silver and azure with a bend gules and three golden 

escallops on the bend. Lord Graunsoun. 





DD □QdI 

\ D 0 □ D /\ 

\n n □/ 

149. Azure three gimel bars gold and a chief gold. Lord 


1 50. Gold with billets sable and a label gules. 

151. Paly silver and azure and a chief gold with three 

martlets gules [in a later hand, Morten], 


52. Azure a bend silver with cotises gold and six lioncels 

gold and three pierced molets gules on the bend. 
Count de Worcestre [a later hand has struck out 
the name and written Wylliam Bohoun, Erle of 

53. England with a silver border. Count de Kent. 

54. Gold three escutcheons each with the arms of vair three 

bars gules [in a later hand Lo : Mount Hermer].^ 

55. Lozengy sable and gold [but described as gold fret of 

sabyir\ a quarter gules with a lion passant silver. 

56. Vair four bars gules [in a late hand Coucy Earle of 


57. Gules crusilly gold with a cheveron gold. Count de 


\fro be continued.'] 
^ This is evidently a Monchensy coat. 





THE ancient house of Shirley has been fortunate in breed- 
ing two genealogists of its name and blood. Sir Thomas 
Shirley, a cadet of the house, knighted in 1622 by that great 
maker of knights, King James I., left behind him no less than 
three histories of his ancestors, which survive as curiosities of 
genealog)^, having been set aside by the book of the late Mr. 
Evelyn Shirley of Ettington, one of the first family histories 
to be written in the spirit of critical inquiry which is to-day 
demanded of the genealogist. 

A modern genealogist, whose traditional pedigree begins 
with an ancestor seated at the time of Domesday upon lands 
which his descendants enjoy in the reign of Edward VII., 
might well unroll his many-shielded pedigree with pious un- 
easiness, knowing how many and how stately were the three- 
decker legends which have foundered of late years in the 
open sea that bore them up so surely in Elizabeth's day and 
Dethick's. But for Mr. Shirley there was no skeleton in the 
deed chest. He spread out and arranged his charters and 
muniments, his deeds and evidences of the ancient Shirleys, 
and generation locked itself surely to generation, Shirley to 
Shirley, till there was no link but was strained and proved 
from Evelyn Philip Shirley of Ettington to Sewal who held 
Ettington when the Domesday commissioners were on their 

Sewal of Ettington, the founder of this enduring line, 
was a sub-tenant of the house of Ferrers, under whom he 
held broad lands in six lordships, whereof Ettington alone 
remains with his descendants. Of the origin of Sewal nothing 
is known, but something may be guessed at and much has 
been asserted. L^pon his unfamiliar name many theories have 
been built. Says Dugdale, ' Of this Sasuualo, whose name 
argues him to be of the old English stock, as some think, I 
have not much to say, considering that we have so little light 
of History, and nothing of Record, for other discovery.' 
Nowadays we are beginning to hope that History and Record 


may join hands to their advantage, but in Dugdale's time his 
distinction was a just one. History of a sort has however 
been busy with ' this Sasuualo/ and Dugdale aided the work 
when he added to this very reasonable statement that by 
SewaFs estate 'I must conclude him to have been no less 
than a Thane in the Saxons time.' 

There were those before and after Dugdale who were 
willing to treat ' this Sasuualo ' in less gingerly fashion. Their 
reasoning was simple enough. ' His name,' as Dugdale says, 
' argues him to be of the old English stock ' ; and Dugdale's 
cautious ' as some think ' is invariably omitted by those who 
quote his statement. A landlord at the time of the general 
survey, he must have been living before the Conquest — a great 
thane then of Edward the Confessor ? The blessed Edward's 
thane must not be insulted by the suspicion that he was a 
new man, an upstart, therefore Ettington in the peerage of 
the ingenious Mr. Collins and in its thousand descendants 
is ' the seat of his ancestors, as there is reason to believe, 
for many generations before.' The Shirleys, to quote Sir 
Thomas Shirley, philarchismus^ 'are assured, by most re- 
nowned recorders, worthy to be believed, that the first ances- 
tors of this house have had the reputation and honour of a 
most ancient Saxon line, flourishing in opulence and dignity 
long before the Norman Conquest.' When the conjecture 
founded upon Sewal's name has come to such glorious flower 
as this, we feel positively ashamed of Dugdale's lukewarmness. 

But a name may sound oddly in an antiquary's ears with- 
out being of necessity from an Anglo-Saxon root. The case 
for Sewal's ancestry shrinks woefully when we find that the 
other Domesday Sewal is an outlandish man, a tenant of the 
Mandevilles. And Sewal, although to seek in Anglo-Saxon 
red books, is found easily enough the other side the Channel. 
In Flanders, for example, the name is discovered twice amongst 
the castellans of Lisle. And Domesday evidence is clear 
enough upon the point. Sewal holds lands here and there in 
four counties, but in each case he holds them of Ferrers, and 
in each case he is in the shoes of different gentlemen, whose 
names ' argue them to be of the old English stock.' We see 
in fact that in half a dozen places where the Norman Ferrers 
has taken seisin of English land in his mail mittens he has 
put in as tenant a man of his own from oversea, and doubtless 
one who in his time has struck a good blow for Ferrers. 



It must not be supposed that a word of Mr. Evelyn 
Shirley's was allowed to give countenance to the story of the 
opulent and dignified thanes. Although it seems that Mr. 
Shirley favoured the idea of an Anglo-Saxon origin for his 
house, he was too careful and conscientious a student to give 
any space to windy speculations ; but it seems that his learned 
work has set no limit to them. Here we may quote the 
letter of a gentleman, whose name argued him to be of the 
old Shirley stock on the distaff side. 

He had been roused to protest, be it understood, by a 
printed statement attributed to the present writer that the 
Shirley ancestor had ' come over with the Conqueror.' With 
the easy confidence which marks the gendeman ^ who takes an 
interest in genealogy,' he assured the writer that this was not 
so. The Shirleys, he said, possessed amongst their papers 
ample proof that their ancestors were possessed of Ettington 
for many generations before the Conquest, and therefore, as 
he added with a very precious modesty, must be reckoned one 
of the oldest Anglo-Saxon families in England. Given his 
premises we should have been tempted to go further, for it is 
certainly startling news that other descendants of opulent 
thanes survive to match ancestors with Sewal's many fore- 
fathers. Modesty was in the body of this letter, but a sting 
lurked in the postscript. ' It appears,' said the letter writer, 
' that there are people nowadays who want to reduce all 
these things to a common level I ' That envious criticism 
should endeavour to fix the ^ common level ' of English pedi- 
grees at the conquest of England is an idea at which a duke 
of Ouidas creation might stand aghast. The ghosts of Dethick 
and Cooke would receive it gasping. 

Sewal's son Fulcher left two sons — Henry and another 
Sewal to whom his brother sold his birthright in Ettington. 
Henry's descendants setded at Ireton and became Iretons of 
that ilk, and, to the outspoken horror of Henry's nephew 
many times removed, the loyal Mr. Evelyn Shirley, pro- 
duced at last that very wicked man Henry Ireton, Lord 
Deputy of Ireland under Oliver, who clenched his bargain 
with Satan by marrying Oliver's own daughter. 

Sewal brother of Henry is the first of the house of Etting- 
ton who appears at Shirley in Derbyshire, and Sir Thomas 
Shirley credits him with a seal of arms of the paly coat which 
is the first armorial bearing of the family. But the evidence 


of Philarchismus in the matter of early seals is hardly trust- 
worthy. This Sewal's grandson, a knight styled Sewal de 
Ettington, was more probably the first bearer of the shield 
with the paly gold and sable. 

Sewal of Ettington the grandson was succeeded by his 
son and heir Sir James de Shirley, with whom the new sur- 
name of the family begins. His son Ralf *s shield, pake de or 
e de sabky is recorded amongst the blazons in the great roll of 
arms compiled in the beginning of the fourteenth century,^ 
but in 1 3 1 1 ^ he seals with the addition of an ermine quarter 
to his shield. He died in the last year of Edward II., leaving 
Thomas his son and heir, who is hailed by his descendants as 
* the great founder ' of the line. He made a great match 
with Isabel Basset, sister and sole heir to Ralf, the last Lord 
Basset of Drayton. The will of this Lord Basset in 1389 is 
said to have provided for the taking of the name and arms of 
Basset by Hugh Shirley, son and heir of Thomas and Isabel, 
but neither names nor arms were changed by the Shirleys. 

The Wars of the Roses left the Shirleys, who were 
marrying the great estate of Staunton Harald in Leicestershire, 
undisturbed in Ettington and their other lands and house. 
Staunton Harald became their main seat, and Ralph Shirley 
by his conduct on the field of Stoke in 1487 strengthened 
the family interest with the new dynasty. The fourth baronet 
of King James's creation was Sir George Shirley of Staunton 
Harald, who begat amongst other sons Thomas Philarchismus^ 
the first Shirley genealogist. Whilst the senior line of Sewal 
was rising in the person of Major-General Ireton, Sir Robert 
Shirley of Staunton, a stout cavalier, was dying a prisoner in 
the Tower of London, notwithstanding that his mother was 
sister to Devereux, Earl of Essex, the general for the parlia- 
ment. The cavalier's younger son, who became at last the 
heir of the family, was Robert Shirley, in whose favour the 
king ended the abeyance of the barony of Ferrers of Chartley, 
and in 1 7 1 1 the descendant of Henry Ferrers's Domesday 
tenant became Viscount Tamworth and Earl Ferrers. To 
George Shirley, a captain in the Foot Guards and a younger 
son by a second marriage, the first earl, his father, gave the 
historic estate of Lower Ettington, which is now enjoyed by 
his descendant Mr. Sewallis Evelyn Shirley of Ettington 
Park, son of the celebrated genealogist. 

^ Cotton MS. * Caligula/ A. xviii. ^ pfr^//^ Chart, ix. 20. 



The arms of Shirley — paly gold and azure with an ermine 
quarter — present some difficulty to the student of such mat- 
ters. They are said to be a Clinton coat assumed on the 
marriage of Henry, son of Sewal, who died about 1165, with 
Joan, daughter and heir of John de Clinton, but the date of 
the marriage makes this impossible, although Clintons are 
found in Warwickshire at a later date with similar bearings. 
Shirley's own coat, borne by Henry's great-grandson, was 
paly gold and sable, but this same great-grandson, as we have 
before pointed out, seems at the last to have adopted the coat 
with the ermine quarter. However derived it comes in the 
end, most probably, from some variant of the arms of the 
great house of Basset, and the will of the Lord Basset con- 
cerning his arms was thus unconsciously half fulfilled by his 
Shirley kinsfolk. To the old coat of paly gold and sable one 
heroic legend at least may be traced. Gazing at it sidelong, a 
Shirley pedigree maker caught suddenly its resemblance in 
that position to the field of a shield well known in Europe, 
and Sewal of Domesday became for the discoverer ' a noble 
Saxon, issuing from the royal dukes of Saxony, and bearer 
of the imperial standard.' ^ 


If in our survey of the ancient English houses we are al- 
lowed to include those loyal vassals of the English crown, 
the islanders of the Channel, we add at least one house of 
high antiquity and distinction to our golden book of no- 
bility. The house of Carteret came to an English peerage in 
the person of Sir George Carteret who married the grand- 
daughter of Sir Bevill Granville the cavalier, the famous Sir 
Richard's famous son. John de Carteret, the son of this 
marriage, commemorated his descent in the title of his new 
earldom of Granville, but his son the last Carteret so entitled 
died in 1775 leaving no issue. Although the older and more 
famous line died with him, Jersey was not left without its 
Carterets, many descendants remaining of the lines which 
trace to Philip de Carteret, the Seigneur of St. Ouen, who 
died in 1 500 and may be taken for the patriarch of all recog- 
nized Carterets of the old stock. 

^ MS. Reg. K. i. 279. 



It is natural that so ancient a house should have its pedi- 
gree makers. A great pedigree was drawn out in 1641 and 
another was entered by Sir George Carteret at the Heralds* 
College about 1668, the earlier one, which is now in the pos- 
session of Mr. Pierre John de Carteret, being accompanied by 
voluminous notes. A history of the family was also con- 
structed by the ingenious Mr. Collins, the maker of peerage 
books, and invaluable collections of records relating to the 
family have been compiled for those excellent publications 
wherein the Societe Jersiaise have done so much to preserve 
and illustrate the genealogy and history of the islanders and 
their islands. 

A stem-father, as the Germans have it, is found for the 
race in one Guy, lord of Carteret, called I'Oiseleur or the 
Fowler, who is said to have died in 1004 leaving William 
who died without issue and Godfrey who carried on the line 
and founded the Abbey of Fontenelles. For these three 
personages we have at present no evidence before us save the 
statements in the seventeenth century pedigrees, to which 
documents the two schools of genealogists attach differing 
degrees of authority. 

Should we desire to derive our Carterets after the estab- 
lished custom from the companions of the Conqueror, ancestral 
names will not be to seek, for the Roman de Rou gives us 
choice of two possible ancestors, 

de Cartrai Onfrei et Mangier 
ki estoit novel chevalier. 

One of these bold riders at least survives the field of 
Hastings, for Malger de Cartrai at the time of the Domesday 
Survey holds several manors in the west country under the 
Count of Mortain. Humfrey de Carteret is given us by the 
early pedigrees as a benefactor of Fontenelle and a father to 
Renaud de Carteret, from whom we may safely allow our 
Carterets to descend. 

For this house as for all others of Norman origin evi- 
dences must be sought amongst those documents in France 
which Mr. Horace Round has calendared and described for 
our national series of record calendars.^ 

Thus we may begin with a charter of Renaud de Carteret 
in 1 125. For the weal of his soul and of the souls of those 

^ Calendar of Documents in France, 918-1206, edited by J. Horace Round. 



before him he gives to Mont St. Michel and its monks the 
church of St. Germain of Carteret with the tithe of the whole 
parish and with the land of the king's alms belonging to St. 
Germain in Jersey and with the tithe of the goods of his 
house. Du Moulin gives the name of Renaud de Carteret 
amongst the names of the knights who followed Robert 
Curthose and Godfrey of Bouillon to Holy Land, but his 
authority is weakened by his adding to the statement that 
Renaud bore a shield ' de gueules a une fesse fusilee d'argent 
accompagnee d'un lambel d'azur/ which, on looking at the 
date, we may deny out of hand. 

His son Philip, ' being led astray by the counsel of wicked 
men,' took away so far as he could the gift which his father 
had made, but St. Michael was a powerful neighbour and one 
with whom the Seigneur of Carteret soon found it better to 
live in peace. Therefore we find Philip repenting and asking 
with a contrite heart God's pardon and St. Michael's, not 
forgetting that of the Abbot Bernard and his chapter. At a 
date between 1135 and 1149 he came to Mont St. Michel 
with his mother Lucy, his brethren Humfrey and Geoffrey, 
and with certain of his men, and there he restored in full 
chapter his father's endowment, adding to it the tithe of his 
mills, two sites in Jersey outside his court, one site at Carteret, 
and all the endowment of St. Germain. Also he abolished 
the evil custom whereby tithe grain was stored in his own 
court where the said grain lessened in bulk. The Abbot 
Bernard, joyfully receiving back the sinful Seigneur, gave to 
him seven pounds in new money of Rouen, and to the said 
Lucy a bezant of gold. Humfrey was made happy with a 
hawk of the abbot's gift and Geoffrey with certain wine- 

Two more charters in the same collection have to do with 
Philip the repentant. In 11 56 he gives to Mont St. Michel 
the church of St. Ouen and the chapel of St. Marie in Jersey. 
In 1 168 he confirms to the monks of St. Michel the endowments 
in Jersey which he and his forefathers have given them, for 
which confirmation the monks agree that Philip and his house 
shall have the right to seek admission to the monastery for one 
of their kin in succession for evermore, if the kinsman shall 
be a clerk or a knight or a worthy person, and that when Philip 
or his successors shall visit the mount they shall be entertained 
for one night as brethren. This confirmation is witnessed and 


allowed by Nichole, Philip's wife, and by Renaud and William, 
his son and nephew. 

Philip is followed by Renaud his son, who, like him, is 
Seigneur of Carteret and St. Ouen, and who confirms by a 
dateless charter in the same collection a gift of land in the 
vale of La Mare, which his father and he had made to the 
church and canons of St. Heliers. 

Renaud de Carteret, son of this last Renaud, is named for 
collector of the aid levied in the fifth year of King John upon 
the lords of the fiefs in the islands, and when in his ninth year 
the same king demands hostages for their fealty from the chief 
men of the islands, Renaud gave up Philip, his son and heir, 
who was thereupon committed to the custody of his uncle 
Richard, who was on the mainland, and being or having been 
constable of the king's castle of Winchester was known to be 
well affected. In 1208 Renaud had a letter of protection, and 
in 12 13 Philip the hostage was given up to Philip Daubeney, 
the governor of the islands. Thus far we may trace the his- 
tory of this Renaud from the extracts now in print from the 
Close Rolls and Patent Rolls of King John. We may add 
that when the king loses Normandy, Renaud de Carteret loses 
Carteret and his other lordships in the duchy, but Carteret is 
. now firmly established as the family surname. 

From Philip the hostage ample evidence is found for tracing 
the Carterets of the elder and younger lines, for the history of 
Jersey is the history of a family which held all its chief offices 
as it were by hereditary prescription. Amongst the wardens, 
baillys and jurats of the island the Carterets are foremost. 
Like the loyal Jerseymen that they were, they fought the 
French and held stoutly by the English king's cause. A 
Reynaud de Carteret, Seigneur of St. Ouen, defended Mont 
Orgeuil Castle against the great du Guesclin, when legend has 
it that he and his seven sons were made knights in one day. 
Philip, his descendant, drove the French from the islands 
when the lieutenant of the seneschal of Normandy had seized 
Mont Orgeuil. This Philip's son, another Philip, was married 
to Margaret, the daughter and sole heir of Sir Richard Harlis- 
ton, the governor of Jersey, and from the twenty sons of this 
wedding spring the many lines of Carteret. 

Edward, the eldest surviving son, carried on the line of 
Carteret, Seigneurs of St. Ouen, and afterwards Seigneurs also 
of the island of Serk, which they had as a fief by grant of 




Queen Elizabeth in 1565. From this Edward came the 
Carterets — knights, baronets and earls, who ended in 1775 
with Robert de Carteret, second Earl of Granville, Viscount 
and Lord Carteret, and more than all — Seigneur of St. Ouen 
— which historic fief then passed from the family of Carteret 
to his distant kinswoman, Jane le Maistre, wife of Elias le 
Maistre, who thus became lady of the fief. 

From Richard, the second surviving son of Philip and 
Margaret, came the Carterets of Vincheles, and from Peter, 
one of the many younger sons, the Carterets of St. Brelade, 
from whom comes Pierre- John de Carteret, now living, the 
genealogist of his family, to whose labours we are indebted 
for the notes which enable us to record the house of Carteret 
as one which can show a line of male descent from an ancestor 
living in the eleventh century. 


AMONGST the few county societies which are doing good 
work in collecting and arranging the mass of record 
abstracts which must go to the making of county and family 
history upon the great scale the William Salt Society takes a 
high place. In the work of that Society General Wrottesley's 
share has been so great a one that one is tempted to treat the 
Society's style as little more than the modest pseudonym of an 
antiquary as laborious as enthusiastic. 

General Wrottesley's last contribution to the publications 
of the William Salt Society has been a history of an ancient 
Staffordshire house nearly allied to his own — the Giifards of 
Chillington — a family which is said to be figured in by Sir 
Walter Scott in the hard riding brood of Squire Osbaldi- 

In the undertaking of this work General Wrottesley, 
finding his note books filling with GiiFards from the four 
quarters of the country to which this once numerous house 
scattered its cadets, decided to give other genealogists the 
advantage of his labours. Therefore he has set before his 
history of Giffard of Chillington an account of the rise of the 
Giifards and notes of the many branches claiming kinship with 
the main stock. 

The great place which the GifFards take in English family 
history may be reckoned by the fact that no less than two-and- 
thirty houses of barons, knights, and squires are described by 
General Wrottesley as having pretensions to a common des- 
cent. With such a name as GifFard,^ a mere epithet name 
after the fashion of so many Norman patronymics, and with 
houses whose very shields of arms show bearings as widely 
unlike as the three passant lions of GifFard of Brimsfield, the 
three stirrups of GiflFard of Chillington, and the indented 
fesse of the west country branches, we should at the outset 
look with suspicion upon any attempt to range all bearers of 
the name of GifFard as kinsmen one to another. Yet it may 

^ The Giffardsy by Major General the Hon. George Wrottesley. Re- 
printed from the proceedings of the Wm. Salt Society, 1902. 

2 GifFard, as General Wrottesley omits to point out, is obsolete French for 
joufflu which signifies chubby-cheeked ; hardly so coarse an epithet as that 
which Pauncefote carries. 



be said that General Wrottesley, without unduly straining 
probabilities, has done much to show that for the most part 
GifFard was Giffard's cousin all England over, and in Scotland 
and Ireland to boot. 

In GifFard we have that black swan of genealogy, the 
Conquest family. Here is no need of dead reckoning of dates 
to show that an ancestor may have been living in that great 
year of 1066, and therefore may well have come over under 
William's blessed banner. Walter Giffard, the leader of the 
GifFards into England, is no obscure man-at-arms to whom the 
name and a tentative date are for all memorial. He crosses 
the water with thirty ships and a hundred men-at-arms in his 
following, and at Hastings he would have borne the gonfanon 
of Normandy had he not pleaded his ' white and bald head * 
and short breath as excuse for the service. His deeds are 
sung by poets and chronicled by historians. He founds a 
house of earls, and his grandson is marshal of England, and 
although his right line ends with this grandson, other GifFards 
of his kin have flourished in his shadow, founding houses 
some of which have endured to this day. A great lord him- 
self, he was the son of a great lord of Normandy Osbern de 
Bolebec, whose Norse name of Osbern speaks of the origin of 
the stock. Osbern had wrought well for his family fortunes 
by marrying Aveline, a sister of Gunnor, one of those fair 
ladies, half wife and half concubine, from whom the Dukes of 
Normandy of Rolf 's line were wont to raise up to themselves 

The genealogist is wont to plead as excuse for his harmless 
folly that his labours go to make sound bricks for the historian 
to lay. Here at least in the long list of famous GifFards we 
may find justification for the plea. Three times a GifFard has 
been Chancellor of England, and a fourth sits to-day upon the 
woolsack, in whose person the family again enjoys an earldom, 
seven hundred years and more after the extinction of the 
Buckinghamshire dignity. A GifFard was a Domesday com- 
missioner ; another, the son of a Constable of the Tower, was a 
famous crusader. A GifFard was a justiciary under Henry IL, 
and another a chief justice of England under George IV. 
Archbishoprics and bishoprics have been theirs, at home and 
abroad, William GifFard, an English Jesuit, coming in the end 
to be Archbishop of Rheims, and even, according to a received 
story, duke and peer of France. They were stout fighters in 


France and Scotland, and the GiiFards of the Chillington line, 
being papists, bred at least one dangerous plotter whose 
abilities for mischief were testified to by Walsingham himself 
with a ' God's death ! never man has been so near cheating 
me as Giifard.' 

In the case of the main line of GiiFard of Chillington 
General Wrottesley's notes are amplified to the space of a 
detailed family history. Chillington came to Peter GifFard, 
who had served under Strongbow in Ireland, by deed of Peter 
Corbuson, whose wife was probably Peter GifFard's father's 
sister, and Peter Corbuson was grandson of William Corbuson 
the Domesday tenant of Chillington. For the origin of these 
Staffordshire GifFards the names of the witnesses to the three 
earliest of their Chillington deeds are produced, amongst whom 
are to be found six Giffards, five of whom General Wrottesley 
shows to have been members of the family of GifFard, barons 
of Fonthill in Wiltshire. The value of shields of arms in 
dealing with questions of early genealogy is aptly shown when 
one seeks for a reason why GifFard of Chillington should bear 
three stirrups with their leathers for arms, a bearing widely 
differing from that of any other house of their name. It will 
be seen at once that this is a version of the famous coat of 
the Scudamores. In the Liber Niger a Walter GifFard is 
recorded as holding one of Godfrey Scudamore's four knight's 
fees in Wiltshire. Scudamore was a near neighbour of GifFard 
of Fonthill, and Peter, the name borne by the first three 
GifFards of Chillington, is a Scudamore name. Here we have 
reasonable evidence of the origin of the GifFard shield with the 
stirrups, and at the same time additional strength is given to 
General Wrottesley's suggested origin of the house of Chil- 
lington. Whether the arms were assumed by reason of kin- 
ship or as the coat of an overlord is unascertainable. 

The story of the GifFards of Chillington is that of many an 
English family of knights and squires. That they are still 
GifFards of Chillington marks them out from among their 
neighbours. They obey the king's writs and follow the king's 
service in Wales, Scotland and France. Their banner of the 
three stirrups is displayed by a younger brother at Borough- 
bridge, and Sir John GifFard carries the banner of England in 
the campaign of the Spurs. They meet Anne of Cleves on 
Shooters' Hill and go in gay coats to the field of Cloth of 
Gold. They take the King's (Edward's) side against his barons 


and against their own kinsmen of Brimsfield and Weston- 
under-Edge. They defend their title in their lands of Chil- 
lington against the bishop their overlord and against the 
Corbusons, descendants of the Domesday tenant, and they 
brawl with their neighbours in the bloody fashion which the 
plea rolls make familiar to us. 

In 1585 Chillington escapes a wider fame through the 
deficiencies of its brewhouse. Its brewhouse will only brew 
one tun at a time, and so, in days when beer was reckoned 
necessary as air and light, Mary the Queen of Scots cannot be 
bestowed at Chillington. ' I pray you,' writes the stern Sir 
Amias Poulett to Walsingham with fervent insistence, ' con- 
sider effectually of the brewhowse, because yt is a matter which 
importeth greatly and yt passeth my understanding to fynd a 
remedye for it.' 

In the end the poor queen is packed off to Chartley. All 
the misery of insufficient beer follows her there, and beer must 
be bought for her at Burton. And in the full casks and the 
empties which pass between Chartley and Burton go the 
letters of the queen and Babington's plotters, who are all 
unaware that each letter on its way yields up its secret to the 
old fox Walsingham. 

Giifard is indeed still GifFard of Chillington, but the tie ot 
the men and their land has often been nigh sundering point. 
For the John Giffard of Elizabeth's day gives his son to the 
Jesuits of Donai and Amiens for education, and thereafter 
follow a century of troubles, fines, imprisonments and exclu- 
sions. Rich and fortunate marriages alone enable the line 
to survive. It goes without saying that the loyal GifFards 
are up for their king, and the ' bloudy tirant ' seizes the 
GifFard lands, which must be redeemed at a high price. Need- 
less also to add that his Majesty's most happy restoration 
puts no spilt milk back into the old jug, and that although 
Charles GifFard played a great part in his Majesty's most 
blessed escape, sheltering him at most imminent risk of his 
neck in his house of Whiteladies after Worcester field. 

The heraldry of GifFard is of the utmost interest, and here 
our national deficiency of reference works of armory is pitifully 
illustrated by the fact that an antiquary of the calibre of 
General Wrottesley is forced to gather his references from the 
useful but wholly uncritical General Armory of the late Sir 
Bernard Burke and from such a slipshod compilation as Mr. 


Foster's Some Feudal Coats of Arms^ the pretentious inaccuracy 
of which was exposed in the first number of ^he Ancestor, 

Of the curious group of shields borne by the various 
branches of GifFard there is hardly one of which in its origin it 
might be said ' this is GifFard's coat,' unless it be the three lions 
passant of the Barons of Brimsfield. The Earls of Bucking- 
ham of this family lived and died before the age of armorial 
bearings. GifFard of Fonthill and Chillington, as we have 
shown, bore a version of the Scudamore stirrups, and GifFard 
of Weston-under-Edge bore a coat with red roundels, said to 
have been derived from their ancestors the Cormeilles family. 
General Wrottesley compares with this a coat in ' Planches 
Roll ' of silver with three bezants on a fess sable, but this is 
wrongly ascribed to ^ Cormale ' being a Cornwall coat, the 
black fesse and bezants standing as it were for a piece of the 
well-known Cornwall border. General Wrottesley seems to 
attach too much importance to the fact of a seal {temp, Ric. I.) 
of a GifFard of Fonthill bearing an ' escarboncle,' which charge 
may safely be set down in such a case as nothing more than a 
flowered shield boss. 

In the shield of Osbert or Osbern GifFard {temp. Hen. III.) 
we have a piece of early armory of the most interesting in its 
composition. For this Osbert GifFard is no GifFard of General 
Wrottesley's broods, unless by his mother, being a bastard of 
King John of England. His arms are cited by the rolls as 
ermine with two bars, or two gimel bars, of gules, and a chief 
gules with a leopard of gold on the chief. His arms, says 
General Wrottesley, ' are probably those of one of the heiresses 
from whom he derived his lands.' But here General 
Wrottesley misses the obvious suggestion of the chief and its 
charge, for whatever may be the meaning of the ermine with 
bars of gules, the chief proclaims itself a piece of the coat of 
his royal father with one of the English leopards thereon, and 
as an early example of bastard heraldry the whole shield is 
worthy of study. The GifFards of Devonshire took to them- 
selves arms with an indented fesse of three ermine fusils, 
clearly founded upon the arms of the Dynhams from whom 
many of their lands came. GifFard of Suffolk is credited with 
a shield of silver crusilly gules with a lion gules — a Braose coat 
to all appearance, and GifFard of Helland in Cornwall bore 
azure with three fleurs de lys of silver, a coat of their Cante- 
low kinsmen, *on each fleur de lys a pellet,' adds General 


Wrottesley, but the pellet is an improbable charge in such a 
position, and is probably a misreading of the knot of the fleur 
de lys. 

Although we have here in the form of a reprint only that 
part of the last volume of the William Salt Society's pubJ^'^r' - 
tionSj General Wrottesley has included that grateful thing, an 
index. A good index too save that the GifFards occurring 
in it are arranged in a tangled skein according to houses and 
dates, and for them alone the index is all but useless and 


WITH Mr. Gerald Brenan's House of Percy in hand, we 
turn at once to compare his work with Sir Herbert 
MaxwelFs House of Douglas^ the first of this series of histories 
of great houses which are being issued under the editorship of 
Mr. Lindsay, Windsor Herald. 

Let it be said at once that in Mr. Gerald Brenan we find 
an author of good skill, a writer fit to face the task — no light 
one — of taking through two stout volumes the story of a 
great ruling house without wearying his reader or losing the 
main thread of his tale. Many will have found Sir Herbert 
Maxwell's narrative a thought dry and didactic, a fault easily 
excused in a chronicler ; but Mr. Gerald Brenan's book in- 
vites no such reproach, for his story carries the reader with it, 
and at times will move him in a way which our makers of the 
modern historical romance, or novel in fancy dress, might well 
mark and learn by. It is in our mind also that the picture 
gallery of the Percys offers a more sympathetic line of ances- 
tral faces than does that of the house of Douglas. The Percys 
were hot in their anger and bloody in their warrings, and it 
was written that they should more than once array the followers 
of the silver crescent against' their liege lord ; but in their 
history we miss that utter treachery, that wolfish cruelty 
which makes the chronicle of the Douglases, black or red, 
read like the dynastic story of a chief's house of the Solomon 

At the threshold of the book we meet, with the deepest 
regret, an introductory notice by the editor, a scanty two-page 
preface, in which Mr. Lindsay explains that he has had no 
opportunity of conferring with Mr. Brenan, * with many of 
whose opinions and remarks ' he ' cannot altogether agree.' 
The crying need of Mr. Brenan's work is just such assistance 
as Mr. Lindsay, a well-known authority on peerage law and 
a * discreet and learned herald,' should have been able to 
afford the author. Mr. Lindsay's opinion that the volumes 

^ A History of the House of Percy, by Gerald Brenan, 2 vols. (Fremantle). 




here offered are well arranged, well written and of great in- 
terest is one which every buyer of the book will agree with ; 
but the editor's further suggestion that by the book a new 
light is thrown upon sixteenth century history, a light which 
will show our ordinary history books for lying compilations 
' written in the Protestant interest and to flatter the national 
vanity,' is at least unfortunate. Nor does a careful reading 
of Mr. Brenan's work indicate in any striking manner ' how 
far worse and inexcusable was the Catholic persecution by 
Protestants under Elizabeth and James than was that of 
Protestants under Queen Mary.' The war which Elizabeth 
and her ministers waged, with their backs to the wall, against a 
religious policy which struck at the very independence of our 
nation will find excusers in most Englishmen. The torture 
and murder of men and women for the errors of their reli- 
gious opinions is so essentially abhorrent a thing that we may 
refuse to discuss its relative excusableness under one reign or 
the other. 

We have said that Mr. Brenan is a writer fit to take up 
the tale which was left by the great ballad-singers of the north, 
but there his fitness ends. For want of help from Mr. 
Lindsay we must reckon him the bard of the Percys rather 
than their true chronicler. His page is wounded with a score 
of errors which an expert might have corrected with ' a mum 
of his mouth.' The very names as we turn the leaves cry 
out for revision. We have ' old Baron Richard ' and ' Baron 
William,' as though it were the house of Rothschild we were 
dealing with. We have the Lady Eleanor Plantagenet and 
the Lady Margaret Plantagenet, names which Mr. Brenan 
should surely know to have no existence outside the historical 
novel. Ingelgram, a very clumsy version of Ingram, occurs 
persistently ; and what can be said for Gilbert de Tesson and 
Gilbert de Bassett. It would seem that Mr. Brenan, who 
should know better, looks upon the de as a decorative prefix 
for any high sounding surname. 

The origin of the Percy sees the beginning of Mr. 
Brenan's difficulties, which yet have seemed no difficulties to 
him. He writes easily, gracefully and confidently on each 
incident of the early history of the family. With a fine 
affectation of the critical spirit Mr. Brenan refuses to ' pass * 
the pedigree of the line from Mainfrea, who came out of 
Denmark to Normandy ' before the advent c " Duke Rollo ' ; 

Seal of Henry, Second Lord Percy. 

Seal attributed to a Percy. 


but once we have William with the whiskers safely across 
Channel any tale may have credit. 

On more than one occasion he showed a strong sympathy with the de- 
feated race, as when he interceded earnestly for Earl Gospatrick after the 
revolt of 1069, and he married a Saxon lady, called by the chroniclers *Emma 
de Porte,' probably because she inherited Semer, near Scarborough, then a 
notable seaport. 

If Mr. Brenan had shown due mistrust for his chroniclers, 
he could hardly have failed to discover the not very remote 
truth that Emma was daughter of a Hampshire baron, Hugh 
de Port by name and a Norman by birth. The chroniclers 
are probably answerable for Mr. Brenan^s long story about 
the Louvain-Percy marriage, concerning which Mr. Brenan 
has an amount of intimate detail suspicious enough when we 
consider that we are dealing with affairs of the mid-twelfth 

While the Lady Agnes de Percy, eventual heiress of the race, was in her 
sixteenth year, and as yet unwedded, it occurred to the shrewd Queen 
Adeliza of Brabant, second wife of Henry I., that no fitter match than this 
could be found for her own half-brother, Josceline de Louvain. Accordingly 
she hastily summoned young Josceline from Brabant, and established him at 
Court, where Agnes de Percy was a Maid of Honour. Now the birth and 
ancestry of this Josceline de Louvain were as splendid as his estate was slender. 
The younger son by a second marriage of Godfred * Barbatus ' Count of 
Brabant and Louvain, he possessed little of land or gold, but he descended in 
the direct line from Charlemagne. 

The whole of this story may be said to rest upon the 
description of Josceline de Louvaine as the queen's brother in 
a certain deed. The legitimacy of his birth is more than 
doubtful. With the Brabant legend once aboard his bark, 
Mr. Brenan's steering becomes even wilder. 

Old Baron William, albeit somewhat dazzled by the splendours of the 
house of Louvain and its indubitable descent from Charlemagne, had no 
intention that the name of Percy should be forgotten in Northumbria. So, 
before he would consent to a marriage between the Lady Agnes and Josceline 
de Louvain, he put forward certain alternative conditions. 

Every reader of the old peerage legends knows those 
conditions. Josceline was to choose between taking the name 
of Percy or forsaking his own arms of the blue lion in a 
golden field for the ancient arms of Percy. Josceline there- 
upon chooses to take the name of Percy and to keep his arms, 
which were his title to the inheritance of the Duchy of 


A legend which crumbles under the thumb of the 
antiquary. In 1 1 50 we are before the period of settled 
armorial bearings, and the suggested chopping of old shields 
for new ones stamps the whole story for what it is, a chroni- 
cler's yarn of the approved pattern. Not only have we no 
evidence of Josceline bearing a blue lion — which by the way 
was not the arms of the Duchy of Brabant — or any beast of 
any other colour, but we have ample evidence that he never 
assumed the name of Percy, remaining de Luvene, de Luvain, 
or de Lovein to the end of his days. In every question of 
heraldry Mr. Brenan drifts rudderless. Armorial bearings 
which we find struggling into fashion under Coeur de Lion, 
with whom the very shield of England has its origin, may be 
for Mr. Brenan as ancient as the totem. This at least is the 
impression we gain when we read his remark concerning 
Great Alan de Percy, who died in 1 120. Of him we are told 
that ' the ancient arms of Percy — " azure five fusils in fesse, 
or " — lost none of their prestige while he bore them upon his 
shield,' a shield which, we beg Mr. Brenan to believe, could 
have borne no such ornaments. The lion shield of Percy, 
which Mr. Brenan and the old storymakers attribute to 
Josceline de Lovaine at the court of Henry I., occurs first in 
the reign of Edward I., six reigns later, when we find it as the 
bearing of Henry Percy, who bore it on his banner at 
Caerlaverock — -jaune 0 un bleu lyon rampant — and on his seal 
attached to the barons' letter of 1301. It may have been 
taken as a variant in colour of the arms of his wife, who was a 
daughter of FitzAlan of Arundel. To crown his acceptance 
of the Louvaine legend, Mr. Brenan tells us in all gravity that 
the new Percys, ' while they retained their own arms, had 
gladly taken the fine motto of the former line — " esperance en 
Dieu." ' One step further, and we might be told that the 
gentle Josceline retained the ancient note paper heading of the 
earlier Percys. 

It is an irksome task to point out the many grave errors 
of archaeological detail in the work of so sympathetic a writer 
as • Mr. Brenan, and we willingly make an end of our carping. 
But a pause must be made before Mr. Brenan's description of 
Burghley as the son of Saxon peasants. Now the descent 
which the Cecils selected for themselves was from a house of 
the Welsh borders. Apart from this doubtful pedigree, we 
have the earliest knowledge of them as a respectable family of 



the middling sort in a countryside whose people must be at 
least as Danish as Anglo-Saxon. If, as we imagine, Mr. 
Brenan has really no new and toothsome bit of genealogy in 
his sleeve, the ' Saxon peasant ' reveals itself as a phrase flung 
at Cecil in meaningless contumely by a young historian who 
rebukes Mr. Froude for his biassed writings. And here we 
must charge our author, in his character of historian, with 
something more than bias. The documents which, according 
to the preface, ' are here revealed ' to us, are referred to in a 
most suspicious series of footnotes. Cotton MS., State Papers, 
Archives des Fays Bas are referred to without a key to volume 
or page or document, and when references are aflForded us, 
such references as ' Cotton MS, Caligula, book vi. 24,' ' Cotton 
MS, Caligula, book vii.,' are apt to arouse doubts in those 
acquainted with the Cotton Library as to whether our author 
has ever had any genuine experience of the documents in 
question. More serious error we find in that mishandling ot 
facts which we find in the historical sections of the volumes 
which, as Mr. Lindsay tells us in his preface, are to prove to 
the candid reader that the histories in common use in England 
are ' far, very far, from veracious.' Cecil is to be painted as 
a master butcher, Elizabeth as red to the elbows in the blood 
of the saints, and in the interest of these ideals, it seems 
allowed to the historian to garble quotations, juggle with 
dates, or suppress inconvenient facts. Even in dealing with 
earlier days, where the air is clearer of the dust of bitter 
controversy, Mr. Brenan shows that his history is the uncriti- 
cal narrative which will serve a ballad singer. The child 
Rutland, for example, dies murdered by ruthless CliiFord, the 
furious queen rages like a fury before the dying York, and a 
foot reference to Holinshed pays for the whole story. 

With a good will we leave Mr. Brenan's history and go 
back to his Percys. Their story as he tells it gains interest 
as it goes in the hands of a writer keen to catch the good 
phrase from the long page of his chroniclers and letter in- 
diters. And what a ladder of history is this story as we 
climb it. Percy ove les gernouns — Percy with the whiskers, 
the Conqueror's man, dies in sight of Jerusalem. A Percy 
is a guardian of the great charter of our liberties and another 
is prisoner at Bannockburn. The favourites of kings and 
queens are foes of the Percy, whether they be Gavestons, 
Spensers or Mortimers. No regimental colour bears such a 



list of battles as does the pedigree of Percy. Did ever a 
' taken care of officer in later days have such fortune as that 
which fell to the little knight Harry Percy, who led his 
Northumbrians on the famous field of Cressy and yet was 
able to hurry home in time to share victory at Nevill's Cross 
with his warlike father, who was keeping the enemy from our 
back gate with an army of chaplains and friars having two 
archbishops and two bishops for brigadiers ? In a yet more 
famous Harry Percy, the Hotspur, we have a world paladin, 
a champion whose sword-blows and lance-pushes a quarter of 
Europe followed with that delight and enthusiasm to which 
our compatriots to-day are moved by very successful players 
at a ball-game. At eight years of age Hotspur sees his first 
campaign against Du Guesclin, he is a knight by the king's 
hand at eleven, and at twelve he leads the last assault through 
the breach of Berwick wall. He is well within forty years of 
age when he dies on Shrewsbury field by an English yeoman's 
arrow, with Douglas dead at his side, and his old companion 
in arms King Henry IV. salts his body and sets it up between 
two millstones by Shrewsbury pillory. His father is forced 
to take cover amongst the Scots and to ride a moonlight foray 
against his own cattle, and, old as he is, comes to no straw 
death in the end. To see how readily the Percys risked the 
Percy skin one has but to follow the line of descent. The 
first earl dies fighting on Bramham Moor, and his brother is 
shortened by a head after Shrewsbury fight. At Shrewsbury 
Hotspur is killed. Hotspur's brother Ralph having been 
slain four years before in the Holy Land. Hotspur's son and 
heir lives to be killed at St. Albans, having reared four sons 
who each and all die on the stricken field, two at Towton, 
one at Northampton, and one, the Gled of Dunstanburgh, at 
Hedgeley Moor. The next generation after these four war- 
riors has Henry, the fourth earl, and him the northern rioters 
kill before his house at Cocklodge. Henry the Magnificent, 
fifth Earl of Northumberland, is a silken prodigal and dies in 
his bed, and his valiant brother William comes scatheless 
away from Flodden, but after their generation violent death 
waits again for the Percys. The magnificent one's son 
Thomas is beheaded in 1537. Of Thomas's sons the eldest 
is beheaded in 1572. He had sought refuge amongst the 
Scots, as his ancestor had done after Shrewsbury, and the 
Scottish gentlemen sold him to his enemies after the fine old 

Seal and Counterseal of Henry, Lord Percy. 1301. 



Scottish custom, for a sum in ready money. The second son 
Henry is found dead in his cell in the Tower, and a coroner's 
jury find that ' not having the Almightie God or his feare be- 
fore his eies, but being moved and seduced by the instigation 
of the devil ' the Earl of Northumberland did discharge a 
dag or pistol into his body and heart, of which he instantly 
died. The foreign press, as may be expected, brought in its 
verdict of wilful murder against Queen Elizabeth with the 
greatest promptness, and it is not to be doubted but that 
Mr. Brenan will endorse you their calm and deliberate judge- 

With this sombre business ends the bloody story of the 
Percys of Alnwick, who henceforth may die in their beds, un- 
less we must reckon in cousin Percy the Gunpowder Plotter, 
who comes in due time to a plotter's end. 

With Josceline, the eleventh lord, the line of Percy 
ends at Turin in 1670. His daughter married three 
times, and with each marriage shows forth afresh the 
woes of the heiress. She is married first to the young 
Lord Ogle, son of the Duke of Newcastle, ' a sickly boy 
of appalling ugliness, certainly weak-minded if not indeed 
an absolute idiot.' Fortunately this gallant bridegroom leaves 
her a virgin widow at thirteen years, but her second marriage 
brings her to the arms of Tom Thynne of Longleat, a brutal 
libertine, of whom she is rid by the three horsemen who met 
Mr. Thynne's coach in Pall Mall and there murdered him 
with a blunderbuss, as may be seen depicted in a neat marble 
bas-relief upon his tomb in Westminster Abbey. A third 
husband was waiting for the unhappy lady in Charles, 
Duke of Somerset, an ill-tempered egotist, with whom pride 
of race and place grew to be a disease to himself and a drollery 
to his contemporaries. He lived however to see his grand- 
daughter and heir match Seymour-Percy with Smithson and 
carry his ricketty honours to a house of Yorkshire husband- 
men, who had come to riches and a baronetcy as London 
haberdashers. But Hugh Smithson was a tall upstanding 
-gentleman, handsome and quick-witted, and we cannot but 
believe that his wife was a luckier woman than her grand- 
mother. Hugh Smithson became Hugh Percy and Hugh 
Percy Duke of Northumberland in due course. The new 
made Percy yielded in pride to none of his predecessors, and 
devoured the family legends with such hearty yeoman's appe- 



tite that he demanded of his king no less a title than the 
dukedom of Brabant, in recognition of his ' ancestor ' Josceline 
de Lovaine*s well-known claims to that title ! 

We turn back through a few pages of Mr. Brenan's book — 
there are nearly nine hundred pages — and we pass many good 
stories. For quotation we take two at hazard. Richard Coeur 
de Lion having a good will towards Richard Percy, and little 
ready money wherewith to demonstrate his kindness, bestows 
upon the Percy a single Jew of great skill in usury, by a toll 
upon whose activities Richard shall enrich himself. One is 
irresistibly reminded of the Chinese method of fishing with 
cormorants. And there is a story of the law of the border — 
whereby we learn that the wardens of the marches held it 
their duty to ride a foray into Scotland ^ once a week as long 
as the grass was on the ground,' which encourages us to believe 
that the Percy and the Dacre have still something to teach the 
generals who failed to catch De Wet. 

O. B. 


Sir, — 

Press announcements of the recent alliance of a British 
peer with a member of a continental baronial family seem to 
call for a few remarks concerning a system of nomenclature 
used by certain nationalities when in this country. 

To come to the point : Why do aristocrats of the Nether- 
lands translate their national particle van into French when 

away from home ? Why does a Baron van , or van 

van 5 in the land which gave him his patent of degree, 

transform himself when abroad into de de ? 

To some these questions will appear frivolous ; to others 
it will seem natural even for such a one to discard a particle 
in the possession of so many of his countrymen who cannot 
boast ' nobility/ The late Dr. Woodward wrote : — 

The Viennese gentry could hardly be persuaded that Ludwig van Beet- 
hoven was only of bourgeois descent, since he used a prefix which seemed 
equivalent to their familar von {Heraldry, ii. p. 408). 

We must look a little further than the days of Beethoven 
for the truth in this matter. The learned heraldist whom we 
have quoted must have forgotten (his work testifies that he 
could not have been ignorant that) the evidence furnished by 
the history of the Netherlands — be it in Holland or in Flanders 
— is that, although the Netherlandish particle was not nobiliary 
in the sense in which afterwards de so became, the fief-names 
in the vernacular Dutch or Flemish, and consequently the 
majority of the names of the nobility had the particle van. 
Here are a few : van Pallandt, van Brederode, van Egmond, 
van Amstel, van Wassenaer, van Renesse, van der Aa, van 
Limburg, van Pamele, van Staevenisse, van Haveskercke, van 
der Straeten, van der Bergh. We have bastards of the 
Bavarian counts of Holland in van Beijeren-Schagen ; of the 
dukes of Brabant in van Veen and van Dongelberg ; ot the 
counts of Flanders in van Praet ; and of the Dukes ot 
Burgundy in the markiesen (marquises) van der Veere 
(issue of Philip van Burgondien, heer van Beveren and 
Anna, vrouw van der Veere). 

It passes comprehension why any Low-Country gentle- 
man of vernacular (and, in Belgium, of Flemish) patronymic. 



cares to discard his native particle for the French ' de^ which, 
goodness knows, has been so misused as for its lustre to be 
materially impaired. 

It is not too much to say that, in most works of reference 
published in Great Britain, the principle for which I plead is 
absolutely overlooked. Gallic fashions, especially since the age 
of Louis XIV., have so pervaded countries surrounding France 
or at some period within French confines, that our insular usage 
is little to blame. At any rate, such aberrations need neither 
be persisted in nor perpetuated. It is consoling to turn to 
such a gigantic undertaking as the British Museum Catalogue 
of Printed Books. In no other work is to be found such a 
multitude of names of authors and of historical personages, 
which, though mis-spelt and mis-translated upon title-pages 
of various nationalities, are here put under their vernacular 
forms with a precision and a knowledge which are marvellous. 
There are no ' d'Egmont ' for the British Museum authorities, 
and rightly. We find the headings : Egmond, Arnold van, 
Duke of Guelders^ and his more famous kinsman : Egmond, 
Lamoraal van. Prince of Gavre. It is surprising that the 
excellent Complete Peerage of G. E. C. is not more accurate 
in the name of the Earls of Athlone, the so-called ' de ' Reeds 
' de ' Ginkel. The first of the name in this country was 
Godard van Reed (lord of, and consequently) van Amerongen, 
Ginkel, etc. 

It need hardly be mentioned that Dutch William's Earl 
of Portland was a fourth son of Berent, Baron Bentinck van 
Diepenheim, and that Arnold Joost van Keppel heer (lord) 
van der Voorst became Earl of Albemarle. In the daily papers 
the names ^ de Brienen ' and ' de Tuyll ' occasionally meet 
the eye. The first of these Dutch baronial families should 
either be van Brienen, or the original French de Brienne ; 
perhaps the latter would be going back a little too far, as 
the other form has been used in Holland since the fourteenth 
century. The second should run ' van Tuyll,' or in fuU, 
with the addition 'van Serooskerke.' To conclude, sir, with 
a choice example of nobiliary imbecility — one can call it 
nothing else — from Spain. A family of Netherlandish de- 
scent, and one must perforce conclude an ennobled one, 

gravely styles itself de Vande . 

(I enclose my card) Yours, 

VAN . 



When Adam delved and Eve span, 
Who was then the gentleman ? 

So John Ball, priest of St. Mary's, Colchester, is said to have 
enquired. He was not aware that ' when Adam delved ' 
his half acre he was himself the first ' gentleman ' of whom 
we have actual record. The earliest mention of the word dis- 
covered for the New English Dictionary is apparently of the 
third quarter of the thirteenth century ; but, before then, 
as early as 1222, Adam 'gentilman* was putting in 'spade- 
work ' on the half acre he held of the Dean and Chapter of St. 
Paul's, in John Ball's own county, at Navestock.-^ Moreover, 
this Adam ' gentilman ' was one of the jury who made the 
return in which his name occurs. It is to be feared that 
his name originated in rural chaff ; but, even so, it would be 
evidence that the word was already familiar. 


Sir, — 

To the end that the fair pages of The Ancestor may not be 
stained by any inaccuracies, however slight, may I be permitted 
to correct one portion of the otherwise delightful letter of 
' A Learned Clerk.' The late Mr. Thomas Brassey did not 
start life in quite so humble a way as the letter would seem to 
imply, but was articled to a land surveyor, and the statement 
that he could not write his own name must, I think, be pure 

Putting on one side his undoubted descent from an old 
landed family, Thomas Brassey, though not of gentle birth, 
save in the technical or heraldic sense, yet came of a good 
yeoman stock. Ormerod, in his History of Cheshire^ published 
in 18 19, refers (2nd edit. ii. 651) to the 'great respectability ' 
of the Brassey family, and adds : ' The family have retained 
their property, but have gradually sunk to the rank of 
yeomanry.' Mr. Brassey 's father farmed his own estate of 
three or four hundred acres at Buerton, and also held an 
adjoining farm at a yearly rental of ^£850. The following 
obituary notice of his grandfather, which I discovered in the 
Monthly Review for January 1804 (p. 658), is interesting as 

^ Domesday of St. PauPs, p. 80. 



showing that progressive elements were observed in the family 
even before the great contractor's time : — 

Aged 60, Mr. G. Brassey, of Buerton, This gentleman occupied and 
managed, with excellent judgement, and proportionate success, one of the 
most extensive dairy and grazing farms in this count}-. He was, indeed, in all 
respects, a strenuous promoter and encourager of agricultural improvements. 

It would be interesting to know whether the writer of this 
notice used the word ' gentleman ' after consultation with the 
Heralds' College, or whether he had anticipated Sir George 
Sitwell's theory ! 

In the same magazine for July 1805 (p. 618) is recorded 
the marriage of Mr. Brassey's parents : ' Mr. John Brassey, 
of Buerton, to Miss Percival.' 

Perhaps ' A Learned Clerk ' rather helps to obscure the 
main point at issue by the introduction of manners and morals 
into what must remain — let us hope for ever — a purely 
academic question, entirely divorced from the modern inter- 
pretations of the word 'gentleman.' There are now many 
qualities combined of education, refinement and good feeling, 
which are infinitely more powerful than any mere question of 
pedigree in deciding whether a man shall be accepted as a 
gentleman by those whose judgement is of most value. But 
this affects the living present more than the dead past. 

While fuUy realizing the interest and the historical im- 
portance of Sir George Sitwell's attempt to discover the 
original significance of the word ' gentleman,' we may yet be 
forgiven tor breathing more freely when he teUs us in con- 
clusion that he does not intend to foUow up his historical re- 
search by a new social programme founded upon it. But 
may we also hope that ' gentleman ' will stiU endure as a dis- 
tinctive word in the language endowed with that finer and 
more comprehensive meaning which it now possesses when 
used with due consideration and not as a purely sentimental 
level for high principled men in whatever rank of life. To 
make character the only claim to the tide would be even more 
absurd than to attempt nowadays to limit it to those descended 
from armigerous families, or to those whose ancestors have 
* always been free.' 

I am. Sir, your obedient servant, 


July 10, 1902. 


WRITING on recent Spanish literature in the Athenaum 
of July 5 Senor Altamira, himself a distinguished 
historian, mentions a phenomenon observable also of late 
among ourselves, namely, that ' the number of books devoted 
to local and provincial history ' has been ' relatively large * to 
that of other historical works. Among those which he names 
as noteworthy on the subjects with which we deal are : in 
Catalonia, La Heraldica en la Filigrana del Pap el ; in Gui- 
puzcoa, Nobiliario de los PalacioSy Casa^ Solares y Linajes nobiles 
de Guipuzcoa ; and in Castille Armas y Tapices de la Corona de 
Espana ; and the third Historia Genealogka y Heraldica de 
Monarquia Espanola. 

* * * 

The Daily Graphic of July 19 contained a communication 
on the strange discovery of human remains, some buried 
wholesale and some in graves and vaults, in the course of 
excavations in Clement^s Lane and Portugal Street, Lincoln's 
Inn. It was suggested that the land had formed part of the 
burial ground of St. Clement Danes. But, as was observed, 
it was most extraordinary that it should have been lost sight 
of in less than a century, for one of the gravestones bore the 
inscription, * Mrs. Martha Ibbott, Died 9 Feb. 18 18, aged 76 
years.' The parish registers of St. Clement Danes ought to 
settle the question. 

* * * 

The recent sale of Wyvenhoe Park, Colchester, by Mr. 
Gurdon-Rebow severs an interesting connection between that 
ancient borough and the bearers of the name of Rebow. The 
Rebows were among those Flemish refugees who settled so 
largely in Essex, especially in Colchester, and they attained 
wealth and knighthood in the person of Sir Isaac Rebow, who 
was M.P. for the borough, and entertained King William III. 
at his house there. His name is commemorated in ' Sir Isaac's 
Walk' adjoining it. The male line terminated with his des- 
cendant, member like himself for the borough, who died in 
1 78 1, but the line was carried on through heiresses for awhile, 
and indeed would seem, on glancing at the pedigree in Burke's 

Landed Gentry to be still preserved. But close investigation 




will show that the present bearers of the name, who are cadets 
of the Suffolk Gurdons, are not descended from the Rebows. 
The pedigree in Berry s Essex Pedigrees implies that all Sir 
Isaac's descendants are now extinct ; but this is not so. His 
daughter Susan married in 1724 Sir Edmund Bacon of 
Gillingham, Bart., whose daughter and sole eventual heiress 
Susan brought Gillingham to the Schutz family, the heiress of 
whom married Lord George Beresford in 1808. In their 
descendants therefore it would seem is vested the representation 

of Sir Isaac and the right to quarter his arms. 

* * * 

Of the coronation honours the peerage given to Sir Francis 
Knollys will be of the most interest. Here we have a peerage 
given to a younger son of a family which has striven for cen- 
turies to assert its claim to an older title which failed in 1632. 
The Knollys story is of the simplest, its law of the most diffi- 
cult. William, first and last Earl of Banbury, died in 1632 
aged about eighty-five. He left behind him in his house two 
children, the elder being aged five years, who should in the 
order of things have succeeded to the Banbury honours. But 
scandal ran vehemently concerning the widowed countess and 
the Lord Vaux of Harrowden, whom she married within five 
weeks of her aged husband's death. The countess herself was 
'a professed papist,' and therefore a person in ill esteem of the 
Parliament. So it would seem that the country had made up 
its mind concerning the legitimacy of the old lord's boys, and 
that opinion was recorded in a high-handed fashion when the 
younger boy, the heir of his elder brother, sought to take his 
seat in the House of Lords in the Restoration Parliament. 
Despite a protest of the house Nicholas Knollys sat as an earl 
for the rest of that Parliament, but since then no writ has been 
issued. The long story of the Banbury claim ended with the 
resolution of the House of Lords on 1 5 March 1 8 1 3 that their 

petitioner ' was not entitled to the title etc. of Earl of Banbury.' 

* * * 

Mr. Arthur Hugh Smith-Barry, who becomes Lord Barry- 
more, is that rare swan, a rich Irish landlord, and as such has 
aided his fellow landlords with purse and person. His Irish 
honours include many burnings in effigy. To the genealogist 
his title of Barrymore is a rare example of a title revived in an 
illegitimate line. The name of Barry is that of one of the 
earliest of the invading knights under Henry II. Kinsfolk 
of the Geraldines, they followed the main line over the pale, 


putting on the saffron mantle and with it those Irish customs 
so hateful to the king and his council at London. The chief 
of the wild Barrys became Barry More, the great Barry. The 
fate of many such chieftains might have been theirs had not 
David Barry, Viscount Buttevant, been wise and wise enough 
to match himself with a daughter of Richard Boyle, the great 
Earl of Cork. The Irish Barry More then forsook yellow 
cloaks, bare legs, and the idle playing on the harp, and Barry 
More was translated into the English and ridiculous title of 
' Earl of Barrymore,* a name which had already appeared in 
the title of the ^ Vicecomes de Barrymore ' at least as early as 
the reign of Elizabeth. The title ended in the days of George 
the Regent and George the King with Earls Richard and 
Henry, who for their manner of life might have been Earls 
Tom and Jerry. From the fourth earl came James Hugh 
Smith-Barry, whose mother was a Smith heiress from Essex, 
and who was succeeded in his lands in Cheshire and Cork by 
a natural son, the grandfather of the new Lord Barrymore. 

* * * 

In the person of Mr. A. B. Freeman-Mitford the extinct 
title of Redesdale is raised up again. In 1802, Sir John 
Mitford, Speaker of the House of Commons, was created 
' Baron Redesdale of Redesdale,' a foolish redundancy of title 
following the custom of his day. He left behind him for 
memorial the Report of the Lords' Committees . . . touching the 
Dignity of a Peer^ which was drawn up by him in 1826. His 
son was Chairman of Committees and died in 1877, taking 
from London one of the last blue tail coats with brass buttons 
to be met in its streets. His estates went to his cousin 
Algernon Bertram Mitford, the now Lord Redesdale, who 
thereupon took to himself the additional name of Freeman. 

* * * 

Of the coronation peerages it may be said that two were 
given as rewards for services to the party in power, one for 
the solace of his Majesty's opposition, one to a great officer of 
the law, one to a distinguished soldier, one to an officer near 
the royal person, and one to an ex-diplomatist. The four 
remaining creations are steps in the peerage, two being given to 
high officials of the courts and two to proconsuls of the empire. 
The list of baronetcies and knighthoods, well deserved as 
some of these may be, contains many names round which old 
Peter le Neve would have scribbled his amusing personalities. 



We have received for review a handsomely-bound volume 
of the Transactions of the Hampstead Antiquarian and His- 
torical Society, Hampstead, although many surrounding 
parishes would fain dress themselves in its name, is set upon 
a hill and remains for all the changes it has suffered a citadel 
which has not yet been stormed by the advancing march of 
London. Therefore a society which will move the Hampstead 
dweller to a wider interest in its story will do good work in in- 
directly encouraging him to protect its green places and fair 
houses. In the volume before us the papers seem well chosen. 
' Dickens and Hampstead ' must in mere gratitude be one of 
the first. Was not Mr. Pickwick with his ' Speculations on 
the source of the Hampstead Ponds ' the first of Hampstead 
antiquarians and historians } The veteran antiquary Mr. J. 
G. Waller contributes a paper of great interest concerning his 
own early rambles upon the Heath, and other papers deal 
with the ^ plundered ministers,' the Church House, and the 
famous houses at Hampstead. 

When we have said so much for the work, we are bound 
to add that the Transactions of the Hampstead Antiquarian and 
Historical Society supply a noble example to other local anti- 
quarian bodies of ' how not to do it.' The papers we have 
spoken of are printed in small type, but plenty of larger type 
is used throughout the book. It is used to describe in the 
choicest journalese the Might refreshments served through 
the evening' before 'a very enjoyable and high class pro- 
gramme of vocal and instrumental music was proceeded with ' 
during which Mr. Holyoake ' won an enthusiastic encore for 
a delightful rendering of " The Sailor's Grave " (Sullivan).' It 
tells how the fortunate antiquaries were ' hospitably entertained 
at a recherche repast,' and how ' hearty and cordial ' were the 
votes of thanks which were ' carried unanimously.' The 
Hampstead Society invites men of learning and distinction to 
contribute to its proceedings, and it is an iU compliment to 
them to smother their work under this fluffy wordiness for 
which the local newspaper or parish magazine can offer a more 
proper asylum. 

Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Fromc. and London. 








His Grace The Duke of Bedford, K.G. 
President of ttie Zoological Society 

His Grace The Duke of Devonshire, K.G. 
Chancellor of the University of Cambridge 

His Grace The Duke of Rutland, K.G. 

His Grace The Duke of Portland, K.G. 

His Grace The Duke of Argyll, K.T. 

The Most Hon. The Marquess of 
Salisbury, K.G. 

Chancellor of the University of Oxford 

The Rt. Hon The Earl of Rosebery, 
K.G., K.T. 

The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Coventry 
President of the Royal Agricultural Society 

The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Dillon 

President of the Society of A ntiquaries 

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Acton 

Regius Professor of Modern History, Cambridge 

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Lister 
President of the Royal Society 

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Alverstone 
Lord Chief jfustice 

Sir Frederick Pollock, Bart., LL.D., 
F.S.A., etc. 

Corpus Professor of furisprudence, Oxford 

Sir Edward Maunde Thompson, K.C.B., 
D.C.L., LL.D., F.S.A., etc. 

Director of the British M usewn 

General Editor — H. 

Sir Clements R. Markham, K.C.B., 
F.R.S., F.S.A. 
President of the Royal Geographical Society 
Sir Henry C. Maxwell-Lyte, K.C.B.^, 
M.A., F.S.A., ETC. 

Keeper of the Public Records 
Col. Sir J. Farquharson, K.C.B. 
Sir Jos. Hooker, G.C.S.I., M.D., D.C.L., 

F.R.S., ETC. 

Sir Archibald Geikie, LL.D., F.R.S., etc. 
Rev. J. Charles Cox, LL.D., F.S.A., etc» 

Lionel Cust, Esq., M.A., F.S.A., etc. 

Director of the National Portrait Gallery 
Albert C. L. G. Gunther, M.A., F.R.S., 
M.D., Ph.D. 
President of the Linnean Society 
Col. Duncan A. Johnston 

Director General of the Ordnance Survey 
Prof. E. Ray Lankester, M.A., F.R.S., 

Director of the Natural History Museum, 
South Kensington 

Reginald L. Poole, Esq., M.A. 

University Lecturer in Diplomatic, Oxford 
F. York Powell, Esq., M.A., F.S.A., etc. 
Regius Professor of Modem History, Oxford 
J. Horace Round, Esq., M.A. 
Walter Rye, Esq. 

W. H. St. John Hope, Esq., M.A. 
Assistant Secretary of the Society of A ntiquaries 

Arthur Doubleday 



The VICTORIA HISTORY is a National Historic Survey compiled 
under the direction of a large staff comprising the foremost students in science, 
history and archaeology, and is designed to record the history of every county 
of England in detail. 

This work v/as approved by our late Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, who 
graciously gave it her own name. 

It is the endeavour of those who are associated in compiling the 
VICTORIA HISTORY to treat it as a scientific undertaking and to embody 
in it all that modern scholarship can contribute. And it is believed that the 
system of co-operation between experts and local students, which is the funda- 
mental principle of the whole work, will give to the History a completeness 
and definite authority hitherto lacking in similar undertakings. His Majesty's 
Government, in recognition of the educational and statistical value of the 
History, has placed all the Government publications freely at the disposal of 
the editorial staff. 

The VICTORIA HISTORY as projected comprises i6o large volumes, 
and already numbers many hundreds of selected contributors to its pages in 
all parts of the country. The price of the complete set of i6o Volumes is 
jf252 net. There are also forty supplementary Volumes of Genealogy — one 
for each county — containing the pedigrees of all families that have been pos- 
sessed of a seat and an estate in the male line since the first year of George III. 
These Volumes are issued at 5;. net each. 

The History of each county is obtainable separately, and the number of 
volumes and the prices for each county are here appended. 



No. of Vols. 

Price in 


No. of Vols. 

Price in 

not exceeding 


not exceeding 

























































































Sussex ... 

































Payment may be made on receipt of each Volume as delivered, or in 
instalments by annual banker's order (in w^hich case the price for a complete 
set is £2^0) as preferred. Orders will be entered by any bookseller in town 
or country. The Volumes are bound in stout cloth gilt. They may however 
be obtained very handsomely bound in half morocco by Zaehnsdorf, price 
j^i 1 1 J. 6d. extra per volume. 



WHEN this great series of the County Histories was first planned 
the approval of our late Sovereign Lady was sought and gained, 
the Queen became patroness of the work, watching its growth with 
interest and giving it her own name as the Victoria History of the 
Counties of England* By her orders a set of the whole series was to 
be reserved for the royal library at Windsor, and to her memory the 
work is inscribed in the hope that it may prove a worthy memorial of 
her illustrious reign. 

That reign saw the beginning of many great literary enterprises 
whose monumental scale sets them amongst national achievements. 
The Dictionary of National Biography^ whose additional volumes are 
closing with the biography of the great Queen, is a work of which no 
nation has seen the fellow ; and the English Dictionary^ now midway in 
its labours, stands a tall head and shoulders above the nearest of its 
foreign rivals. 

But vast as these undertakings may be the Victoria History competes 
with them in friendly rivalry. Its bulk is the least of its claims, but 
the fires of Peking, which burned the sole perfect copy of the half- 
mythical Chinese Encyclopaedia, have made an end of the one book 
which could compare with it in size. The complete History itself 
marshals a hundred and sixty volumes, and to these are added the 
supplementary volumes containing the pedigrees of the county families, 
so that it will be seen that it is almost a library in itself for those who 
desire the complete series, rather than a book which is in the course of 

Such a neglected study has been the history of our own towns and 
fields that it may be well that the public should learn what county his- 
tory should be. And yet from the seventeenth century to the earlier 
years of the century now gone by many score tall folios and fat quartos 
of county history came through the press, among the most noteworthy 
being those of Surrey by Manning and Bray, Ey ton's Shropshire, 
Nichols' Leicestershire^ Hutchins' Dorsetshire^ and Blomfield's Norfolk. 
As a rule however, for all but the determined antiquary or grubber of 
pedigrees, the county history of the past has been for the most part too 
dull for general perusal. Still, old and new, county histories have one 

quality in common, that their buyer acquires a sound property upon a 
rising market. In the words of The Times describing the Victoria 
History — 

* Ever}^body knows what sort of a book was the normal old- 
fashioned county histor^\ It was commonly the work of one man, 
laborious in the extreme, praiseworthy, decorous and dull. It ran to 
three or four immense volumes, wnth steel plates of churches and 
gentlemen's seats, good maps according to the lights of those days, and 
a good index. Sometimes, as in a few of the Yorkshire histories, a 
factitious value was lent to the books by the drawings specially made 
by Turner, w^hich soared as high above reality as the prose of the 
author sank below it. But the real fault of the county history of this 
type was that the local aspect of things was not presented in its proper 
relation to the histor)^ of the country as a whole. The spirit in which 
the book was written w^as too commonly the spirit of the topographer. 
Every local unit remained a unit ; the writer, as a rule, had his 
county or his township so much before his eyes that he paid no atten- 
tion to the wider aspects of the national life. Nor was it possible that 
the idea of development, which is the root idea of the modern historian, 
could take any great place in the older local histories. Probably many 
excellent local historians of to-day would be guilty of the same faults if 
they were left to do their work alone ; but the organization of the 
Victoria History is such as to prevent this. 

What County History may be, in the hands of no one man, but 
in the hands of a national company of scholars, the Victoria County 
History sets forth to prove. That the story it has to tell should be 
dull is heresy for an Englishman to believe ; that it is, as a fact, far 
from being dull, a glance at the volumes of the Victoria History already 
published will convince the greatest sceptic' 

Nowadays we are a restless people, ever on the move, for the most 
part regarding a seven years' lease as chaining us unduly to a house. 
Many a man does not know the ver^' name of his great-grandfather, 
and whence that remote ancestor may have come is as obscure as the 
origin of the Ar}'ans. Having no tie of place or blood such a man 
may reasonably contend that the discovery of his own pedigree, though 
it were for thirty generations back, would move him no more than any 
other string of names. Yet could we present before him that pedigree 
\n flesh and blood — could he see his grandfather in high stock and 
hessians, his great-grandfather in powdered hair and top-boots, his 
great-great-grandfather in ruffled cuffs, bob-wig and three-cornered hat, 
and even the first of his name — franklin, yeoman, or Piers the Plow- 

man, surely the liveliest interest and the most human would be 
awakened as he saw pass before him these forefathers in their habit as 
they lived, as when the spark of his own life was in their breasts. 

So then with our histories. A man's interest in his land, in his 
native county, in the corner of England which chance has brought him 
to dwell in may be all too sound asleep to be awakened by a pedant's 
string of names and dates, but it is there to awaken when the past story 
of town and field is brought to him as a living thing coloured in all its 
strange and many hues. 

To know how and in what manner his crowded city grew up from 
a line of straggling cottages round some industry reckoned a little thing 
in its beginning, how his county town, dozing through a week broken 
only by the rustic chatter of market day, was once a point towards 
which the merchants from far countries came with bales of outlandish 
merchandise along the packhorse roads — this where a half-dozen 
farmers' traps come in our day — this is surely knowledge which is 
good company for a man to carry with him in his daily round. 

This land, now sheep pasture, was open sea in days of which 
County History will tell us, and on the hillside far inland are stones 
which were a quay to which Roman galleys were moored. This high 
country dotted with villas was the great forest in whose secret places 
the strange rites of wood-devils were celebrated. This cornland was 
marsh and mere, the home of pike and waterfowl, and where the 
mound is at the village end was a castle with inner and outer bailey, 
keep and drawbridge, the nest of an evil man of foreign speech who 
oppressed the stubborn English until in full stream of fortune he broke 
himself against the king's power, a clay pot against a brass pot. 
Where the duke's towers are to-day there was once a charcoal burner's 
hut, and where Hodge has his thatched cottage on the down a great 
Roman proconsul had his villa with its libraries, its baths and hypo- 
causts, its hall with seagods in tesserae colouring the floor and the loves 
of Apollo upon the painted walls. 

Such a story as this might be dull in the telling, but the Fictoria 
County History relies upon no one man's pen, and it is not too much to 
say that no such body of scholars and specialists has ever been mustered 
before for a national work. 

After what fashion the Victoria History will follow its task may be 
estimated when we consider the roll of distinguished men who are at 
work for it. 

The history of each county begins with its geology. The story of 
the formations which have become England are told by the members 
of His Majesty's Geological Survey. 

The description of English flora and fauna are exhaustive and accu- 
rate. From the forests of the coal period to the weeds last arrived in 
our hedgerows, from the mammoth to the brown rat which lately drove 
out our native black rat, our birds, beasts, fishes and insects, herbs and 
forest trees find describers amongst a group of editors including every 
name of the first rank amongst students of Natural History. 

Coming at last to man and his work, Mr. Boyd Dawkins, the well 
known author of Early Man in Britain^ is the general editor of those 
chapters of the history which deal with the history of man in our 
island in the remote days before the coming of Romans or Anglo- 

England can never forget that she was once a province under the 
Roman power, for over the country still runs the network of roads 
which grew up in the wake of the Roman eagles, the Roman tile is in 
most of our ancient walls, and some fragment of toy or tool from 
Roman hands is turned wherever the ploughshare runs. Great care 
therefore has been spent upon the section of the history relating to 
Roman England, which is directed and edited by Mr. Haverfield, 
whose name stands for the archaeology of Roman England amongst 
antiquaries all over the world. 

Anglo-Saxon remains are dealt with by Mr. C. Hercules Read, of 
the department of Antiquities at the British Museum, and by his 
assistant, Mr. Reginald Smith. 

Ethnography is in the hands of Mr. G. Laurence Gomme, well 
known by his work for the Folk-lore Society ; and the dialects, so fast 
disappearing before the face of the School Board, are treated of by Mr. 
Joseph Wright, the Editor ot the Great Dictionary of the English 

There are those for whom English history begins with King 
William the Conqueror and Domesday Book. The smatterer in 
antiquities is wont to nourish a belief that Domesday Book is a record 
easily to be construed although a trifle dull withal ; the more advanced 
antiquary or historian knows Domesday Book for a maze of puzzles 
and pitfalls, but a record which has not its fellow in the deep interest 
it holds for English people. Amongst the names of the skilled inter- 
preters of Domesday Book that of Mr. Horace Round stands eminent, 
and from his hand come the articles upon Domesday Book and its 
kindred records which will appear in each of the Histories. 

In no point will the Victoria Histories contrast more notably with 
the histories that came before them than in the care with which the 
story of our national buildings is set forth. The history and description 
of castles and houses, walled towns, cathedrals, abbeys and churches is 

under the supervision of a large committee of students of architectural 
history from Mr. George Fox, who speaks with authority of the Roman 
work, to Mr. Gotch, whose name is so familiar by reason of his brilliant 
studies upon the English Renaissance in architecture. 

Mr. St. John Hope, whose researches into ancient architecture 
have left little untouched from the beehive hut to Sir Christopher's 
dome, edits the section dealing with the cathedrals and monastic 
remains, and directs the making of the coloured ground plans which 
show the growth and architectural history of the greater buildings. 

Mr. A. F. Leach edits the history of the English public schools 
and grammar schools. Where counties have a seaboard Professor J. K. 
Laughton edits their history so far as it relates to the story of our fleets. 

The history of the feudal baronage, of the Nevills, Mortimers, 
fitzAlans, Bohuns, and their fellows, is in the hands of Mr. Horace 
Round and Mr. Oswald Barron. 

His Grace the Duke of Beaufort is editor-in-chief of the articles on 

Sir Ernest Clarke, Secretary to the Royal Agricultural Society, 
directs the section on Agriculture. 

The greater part of the volumes of each county will contain the 
history of the English parishes, the sum of which is the history of the 
county. The parish and its beginnings, its church and its memorials, 
the story of its manors and of their lords, of its ancient and interesting 
buildings, the story of that change in the face of things which once so 
slow seems in our day to be hurrying the land towards a time when 
England will be an island town inlaid with market gardens. For this, 
the most important share of our work, the Victoria History has the help 
of nearly every English historian or antiquary, and in its pages will be 
found the results of many men's lifework of scholarly labour and re- 
search. Yet it is not upon such collections alone that the parish his- 
tories are based. The vast records of the nation — records which for 
bulk and interest excel those of all other peoples — are being system- 
atically searched by a stalF of skilled workers, assisted by a Records 
Committee headed by the Deputy-keeper of the Public Records and the 
Director of the British Museum. 

Illustrations are bestowed plentifully upon the history : illustrations 
of Roman and Anglo-Saxon remains, of castles and manor houses, of 
cathedrals and churches, and of the fast-perishing beauties of English 
house and cottage architecture. Illustrations of famous monuments, 
Roman pavements, brasses and coloured glass have their place, and 
ancient pictures of the towns and countryside stand in contrast with 
photogravures and mezzotints from the hundred and sixty paintings of 

modern English scenery which are being specially made for the His- 

There is an abundance of good maps, from the geological and 
botanical maps and the maps which illustrate Domesday Book, to 
Speed's wonderful maps published in 1610 and the maps of the modern 

In an additional volume are added to each county history elaborately 
drawn pedigrees with many portraits of those county families, titled and 
untitled, who have held a seat and landed estate in their male line since 
1760, the first year of the reign of George III., the reign which saw 
the beginning of the modern period of change. 

At a price and under conditions of purchase which allow the 
history of his own county to find a place on the bookshelf of every 
Englishman who buys books, and to set the whole work within reach 
of the least endowed of provincial public libraries, the Victoria History 
cannot fail, owing to its wide interests and deep educational value, to 
take its place amongst the greatest of the familiar and trusted books of 

Such a work as the Victoria History may be amplified in detail ; 
indeed it is hoped that the great work will be the fruitful mother of 
much local archaeological study. But the vastness of its conception 
and the accuracy of its detail will make it stand whilst black ink and 
sound rag-paper endure, a national record and a landmark in our history. 

Full detailed prospectuses of each county as issued may be had on applica- 
tion to booksellers or to the Publisher Sy Messrs. Archibald Constable Co. 
Ltd.y 2 Whitehall Gardens^ Westminster. Specimen volumes will be sent 
on approval to be viewed at any bookseller's in town or country. 

€\ c% r\.